IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, CJ 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
 
Civil Appeals No.101 & 102-P of 2011. 
(On appeal from judgment dated 27.04.2010, of 
the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in 
Writ Petitions No.205 of 2010 and 33 of 2009).  
 
 
Regional Commissioner Income Tax, 
Northern Region, Islamabad.  
(in Civil Appeal No.101-P/2011) 
 
Commissioner of Income Tax Company Zone, 
Income Tax Officer, Peshawar 
(in Civil Appeal No.102-P/2011). 
 
 
 
…Appellants. 
 
VS 
 
Syed Munawar Ali and others. 
(in Civil Appeal No.101-P/2011) 
 
Kiramatu Ullah Khan and others. 
(in Civil Appeal No.102-P/2011). 
 
 
 
…Respondents. 
 
For the Appellants: 
 
Mr Shahid Raza, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
(in both Appeals) 
 
For Respondent No.: 
 
Mr Ijaz Anwar, ASC.  
1-8 in C.A.No.101-P/11 
& for Respondents No.1-39 
In C.A.No.102-P/11). 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
17.02.2016. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J. - These Appeals, by leave of the 
Court, are directed against common judgment dated 27.04.2010, passed by 
the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby the Writ Petitions filed by the 
C.A.No.101-P/11 etc.  
2 
Respondents were disposed of with the direction to the Appellants to act 
according to law and to do what is required by the law to do within a 
minimum possible time.  
 
2. 
 
The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present 
proceedings are that the Respondents and others while working as 
Superintendents/Supervisors with the Appellants filed an Application before 
the Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue (Revenue Division) for 
upgradation of their posts from BS-13 to BS-16, inter alia, on the ground 
that since the post of Superintendent has been upgraded to BS-16 in 
Federal/Provincial Government, therefore, the post of Superintendent may 
also be upgraded in the Federal Board of Revenue from BS-13 to BS-16. 
The said Application remained undecided, and the Respondents filed Writ 
Petitions before the Peshawar High Court, which were disposed of by a 
learned Division Bench by the consolidated impugned judgment. 
 
3. 
 
The Appellants filed Civil Petitions for leave to Appeal against 
the judgment of the Peshawar High Court in which leave was granted to 
consider whether in view of the bar contained under Article 212 (3) of the 
Constitution, the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a Constitution 
Petition relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. 
Hence these Appeals.  
 
4. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the 
jurisdiction of the learned Peshawar High Court was barred under Article 
212 (3) of the Constitution, as the issue of upgradation which was the 
subject matter of the Writ Petitions relates to the terms and conditions of 
C.A.No.101-P/11 etc.  
3 
service of the Respondents and could not have been adjudicated upon by the 
High Court. He next contended that the terms and conditions of service of 
civil servants fall within the domain of the Service Tribunal, therefore, the 
impugned judgment was without jurisdiction.  
 
5. 
 
As against this, the learned Counsel for the Respondents have 
contended that the issue of upgradation is not covered by the expression 
“terms and conditions of service” of a civil servant, therefore, the High 
Court has the jurisdiction to decide the issue.  
 
6. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have 
perused the record. The expression “upgradation” is distinct from the 
expression “Promotion”, which is not defined either in the Civil Servants 
Act or the Rules framed thereunder, and is restricted to the post (office) and 
not with the person occupying it. The upgradation cannot be made to benefit 
a particular individual in term of promoting him to a higher post and further 
providing him with the avenues of lateral appointment or transfer or posting. 
In order to justify the upgradation, the Government is required to establish 
that the department needs re-structuring, reform or to meet the exigency of 
service in the public interest. In the absence of these pre-conditions, 
upgradation is not permissible.  
 
7. 
 
The aforesaid definition of the expression “Upgradation” 
clearly manifests that it cannot be construed as promotion, but can be  
granted through a policy.   In fact, this Court in the judgment titled as Ali 
Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) and an 
unreported judgment of this Court passed in the case of Chief Commissioner 
C.A.No.101-P/11 etc.  
4 
Inland Revenue and another vs. Muhammad Afzal Khan (Civil Appeal 
No.992 of 2014) has held that the issue relating to upgradation of civil 
servants can be decided by a High Court in exercise of its constitutional 
jurisdiction and bar contained under Article 212(3) of the Constitution 
would not be attracted. The policy of upgradation, notified by the 
Government, in no way, amends the terms and conditions of service of the 
civil servant or the Civil Servants Act and or the Rules framed there-under. 
The Service Tribunals have no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal involving 
the issue of upgradation, as it does not form part of the terms and conditions 
of service of the civil servants. The question in hand has already been 
answered by the aforesaid two judgments of this Court.  
 
8. 
 
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the 
impugned judgment; consequently these Appeals are dismissed.  
 
  
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad the, 
17th February 2016. 
Approved for reporting. 
Sohail/**