SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Guizar Ahmed, CJ
Mr. Justice Jjaz ul Ahsan
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi
CIVIL APPEAL NO.550 OF 2020
[Against the judgment dated 17.12.2018, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal,
Islamabad in Appeal No.1571(R)cs/2o16j
Secretary Finance, Finance Division, Pak.
Secretariat Islamabad. 
. . .Appellant
Versus
Muhammad Farooq Khan son of Adil
Khan, Secondary School Teacher (BPS-is)
Islamabad Model School for Boys, G-614,
Islamabad and others. 
. . . Respondents
N
For the Appellant (s)
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional
Attorney General for Pakistan
Mr. 
Khan 
Hafeez, 
Joint
Secretary, Finance Division
Mr. Sajid Javed, Legal Assistant,
Finance Division
Mr. Kamran Afzal, Secretary
On Court's Notice
For Finance Division
For Ministry of Federal : Ms. Farah Hamid Khan,
Education and 
Secretary
Professional Training
For 
Establishment : Dr. Jjaz Munir, Secretary
Division
For the Respondent(s) 
Ms. Shireen Imran, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah,
AOR
Date of Hearing 
10.03.2021
ORDER
GULZAR ARMED, CJ.- Respondent No.1 (the
respondent) was working as Secondary School Teacher (SST)
13PS-17) in the Islamabad Model School for Boyes, G-6/4,
F
CA, 55O 012020
Islamabad, under
under the Federal Directorate of Education. Vide
Notification dated 11.04.2013, the respondent was promoted
through time-scale from BPS-17 to BPS-la On grant of such
time-scale promotion, the respondent was not granted one
premature increment, as such, he filed a departmental
representation on 27-05.2015. The same having not been
responded by the department the respondent filed Service Appeal
No.1269(R)(c5)/2015 before the Federal Service Tribunal,
Islamabad (the Tribunal) on 11.08.2016. The said appeal was
disposed of vide order dated 14.01,2016, with the direction to the
department to decide the representation of the respondent within
3 months. Vide order dated 19.07.2016, the departmental
representation of the respondent was rejected, against which the
respondent filed a service appeal, which was allowed by the
Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 17.12.2018, directing the
appellant to grant pre-mature increment to the respondent. Being
aggrieved, the appellant challenged the same before this Court
through a civil petition for leave to appeal, wherein leave was
granted vide order dated 02.06.2020.
2. We have heard the arguments of the learned Additional
Attorney General for Pakistan so also the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. We have also heard the Secretary
Finance Division, Secretary Establishment Division so also the
Secretary, Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training
and perused the record of the case.
3. The learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan
has contended that grant of time scale from BPS-17 to BPS-18 to
 
the respondent was not a promotion as neither the post of the
rl
.1
CA.55U 012020 
-3-
respondent on which he was working in BPS-17 on grant of time
scale in BPS-18 was changed nor was he granted any higher
responsibility and for grant of promotion, criteria is fixed and only
after meeting the criteria, the Departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC) recommends granting of promotion. He contends that no
DPC was held for considering the grant of time scale promotion to
the respondent from BPS-17 to BPS-18. He further contends that
the Establishment Division through its Office Memorandum (O.M.)
dated 19.09.2011 has opined that grant of time scale formula
without change in designation of posts does not involve up-
gradation. He also relied upon the Finance Division's letter dated
23.05.2001, where it has been opined that grant of time scale is a
special dispensation and is totally different from promotion and
up-gradation. He has further contended that the respondent has
not challenged the Notification dated 14.04.2013, which was
issued pursuant to Establishment Division's Office Memorandum
dated 19.09.2011 and thus, no relief could be granted to the
respondent. 
I
4. The learned Additional Attorney General has further
contended that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has
omitted to consider overall formula of granting of time scale and
erroneously held that time scale promotion was a promotion in
service. He contended that the judgment of this Court in the case
of Government of the Pun jab through Secretary Services, Pun jab,
Lahore and 4 others v. Muhammad Awais Shahid and 4 others
(1991 SCMR 696), was not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and was distinguishable. He
rther contented that the judgment of this Court dated
3. 
CA.550 of 2020 
-4-
04.04.20 17, passed in the case of Ministnj of Finance through its
Secretarq, Islamabad a Muhammad Is rail, Superintendent and
another (Civil Appeals No.2290 to 2298/2016), was also not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. The learned Additional Attorney General ultimately
requested for setting aside of the impugned judgment and allowing
the appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand has contended that through grant of time scale, the
respondent was promoted from the post of BPS-17 to BPS-18 and
therefore, on grant of this promotion, the respondent was entitled
to premature increment. He has supported the impugned
judgment.
7. The background of the controversy arose from the
Summary dated 03.02.2011, moved to the then Prime Minister by
the Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan on the subject
of Implementation Plan For Uniformity Of Education System In
ICT, as directed by the then Prime Minister of Pakistan. It referred
to a meeting dated 01.02.2010, under the Chairmanship of the
then Prime Minister in which it was decided to make ICT
Education System as a role model for the whole country through:
d.
Up-gradation of teachers working in ICT.
e.
Capacity building of the teachers working in ICT.
f.
Up-gradation of physical infrastructure of F.G.
Educational Institutions for merger with IMCs.
8. The Federal Directorate of Education under the
Ministry of Education proposed implementation plan with the
following recommendations: -
.
- 
CA.55(!Ot2U2U 
-
g.
Up-gradation of all Matric Trained Teachers
BPS-09 to 35-14 and Trained Undergraduate
Teachers (TUGT) BS-14 to BS-16 being in line
with National Education Policy, 2009.
h.
up-gradation of teachers 35-16 and above
through time scale promotion formula.
i.
Provision of charge allowance, hard area
allowance and transport facility to the teachers.
j.
Capacity building of all teachers through well
planned training courses.
k.
Up-gradation of Physical Infrastructure of F.G. I!
Schools and Colleges at par with IMCs.
1. 
All Schools and Colleges be named as Islamabad
Model Colleges. 
F!
9. On these recommendations, the Minister of Education
on 08.11.2010 in his speech announced as follows:-
All Educational Institutions of Islamabad Capital
Territory shall be named and administered as
Islamabad Model Schools and Colleges thus
eliminating evening shift from all Islamabad
Model Colleges with effect from Jan, 01, 2011.
Agreed in principal with the proposal of up-
gradation all Matric Trained Teachers BPS-09 to
BS-14 and Trained Undergraduate Teachers
(TUGT) 35-14 to BS-16 and up gradation of all
teachers of 35-16 and above through a Time-
Scale Formula which should be finalized in
consultation with Ministry of Finance and
Establishment Division for implementation from
January, 01.2011.
Agreed to the enhancement of charge allowance
of the principals/ heads of the institutions as
proposed. Date of implementation to be decided
in consultation with Ministry of Finance.
Transport facility for the students and teachers
especially in the rural areas should be arranged
by the Ministry of Education in collaboration
with CENICP.
Agreed to the establishment of Federation Public
School and also consider the establishment of a
Model University in Islamabad to cater for the
affiliation needs of ICT graduates & Post
Graduate Colleges, which are presently affiliated
to University of Punjab Lahore.
4. 
It is stated that more than 13000 teachers are
anxiously wailing for implementations of the
 
HISTORIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE HONORABLE
Cl .550 of 2020 
-6-
PRIME MINISTER OF ISLAMIC REPBLIC OF
PAKISTAN.
5. The Prime Minster Secretariat is, therefore,
requested to kindly direct Ministry of Finance and
Establishment Division for their further necessary
action to ensure implementation of the Directives.
-sd-
(M. Athar Tahir)
Secretary
P.S. to Prime Minister PM Secretariat Islamabad.
U.O. No.F 1/1/DQ-FDE 
Dated 03.02.2011"
10. 
Pursuant to the above Summary, the Finance Division
through its Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2011 approved the
up-gradation of posts and also up-gradation of teachers of BPS-16
and above through time scale. On this approval by the Finance
Division, the Capital Administration and Development Division
(the CADD) through Notification dated 14.05.2011 made
amendments in the recruitment rules of Federal Schools. The
Establishment Division through its Office Memorandum dated
19.09.2011 gave its opinion that time scale formula is simply
grant of higher scale without change in designation of posts and
does not involve up-gradation of posts and amendment in
recruitment rules and therefore, exclusively concerns Finance
Division and advised the CADD to take up the matter with the
Finance Division to work out details of the formula in
continuation of its O.M. dated 18.2.2011. On 05.102.2011, the
Prime Minister was pleased to approve para-5 of the summary.
11. 
The CADD issued Notification dated 14.10.2011 for
adopting time scale formula for implementation of the Prime
Minister directives such Notification is as follows:-
"Government of Pakistan
Cabinet secretariat
CAPITAL ADMINISTRATION & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
CA.55002020 
-7-
Islamabad the October 14, 2011
NOT IFICATION
No.F .1-1/2011-EDU. Following time scale formula shall be
adopted for implementation of Prime Ministers Directive
No.2605 dated 17.02.2011 (also concurred to by Finance
Division OM No.F.l(13)/R-1/2010-203 dated 18th February,
2011) for teachers in BS-16 & above under the Federal
Directorate of Education w.e.f. 01.01,2011: -
S # BPS of Years of service required for
Teaching next higher scale
Staff
1.
BS-17 
Five years in BS- 16.
2.
88-18 
Five years in BS- l7or lO years in
88-16 and 88-17.
3.
85-19 
Seven years in BS-18 or 12 years
in BS-17 and 35-18.
4.
85-20 
Seven years in 38-19 or 19 years
in BS-17 and above,
5.
BS-21 
Five years in 85-20 or 24 years in
85-17 and above.
2. 
The promotion through above formula will be subject
to the fallowing terms and conditions.
i.
The service rules, nomenclature/ tiers of the posts
and seniority of the teachers shall remain intact.
ii.
The promotion through time scale will be subject
to fitness of candidate and recommendations of
relevant DPCs and Selection Boards.
iii.
There would be no consecutive time scale
promotions.
- sd-
(MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE TAHIR)
Joint Educational Advisor"
12. On 09.02.2012, the Federal Directorate of Education
issued a Notification by which it promoted Trained Graduate
Teacher (TOT) (BPS-b) to the post of Senior School Teacher (SST)
(13PS-17) with effect from 01.01.2011 and in such Notification the
name of the respondent was mentioned at Serial No.308, which is
as follows:-
"TO BE PUBLISHED IN PART-rn OF GAZETTEE OF
PAKISTAN
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Federal Directorate of Education
Islamabad the February, 09, 2012
M
CA.550 of 2020 
-8 -
No.F.16-17/2012 (ii) (SST) FDE..........In pursuance of
Capital Administration & Development Division's (CA & DD)
Notification No.F.2-1/2011 (ii) - (Education), dated January
24, 2012, the following Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT)
(BPS- 16) are hereby promoted to the post of Secondary
School Teachers (SST) BS-17 (Ex. Deputy Headmaster)
with effect from 01-01-2011 and placed in the institutions
as mentioned against each:
Sr. 
Name 
Date of Birth 
Institution
No.
1. 
Mr. Jalil Ahmed 
05-07-1951 
IMCB Rawat,
Islamabad
308. 
Mr. Farooq Khan 
06.01.1963 
IMSB, G-6/4,
Islamabad
2.
The incumbents are eligible to draw the financial benefits
w.e.f. 01.01.201 11 and their seniority will be determined as per
Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993.
3.
This issues with the approval of Director General
(Education).
-sd-
(IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN)
Director School (Male)
13. The Federal Directorate of Education vide its
Notification dated 11.04.2013, granted time scale promotion to the
SST from BPS-17 to BPS-18 with effect from the date mentioned
against their names in the Notification. The name of the
respondent appears at Serial No.308 and he was granted such
time scale promotion with effect from 02.01.2011. The Notification
dated 11.04.2013 is as follows:-
"TO BE PUBLISHED IN PART-111 OF GAZETTEE OF PAKISTAN
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Federal Directorate of Education
Islamabad the April 11th, 2013
NOTIFICATION
No.F. 1-04/2013 (Time Scale) FDE: In pursuance of Finance
Division's O.M. No.F.1(13)/R-1/2010-2013 dated February
 
18th, 2011 and the Establishment Division's O.M. No.
CA. 550 of 2020
8/53/2009-R-I dated September 19 th 2011 and on the
recommendations of time scale promotion committee in its
meeting held on 25.02.20 13 and with the approval of
competent authority, the following Secondary School
Teachers (BPS-17) working in Islamabad Model
Schools/Colleges under Federal Directorate's of Education
Islamabad are promoted through time scale promotion from
BS- 17 to BS- 18 with effect from the date mentioned against
each:
Sr. 
Name 
Date of 
Institution 
Date of
No. 
 
Birth 
 
eligibility
1. 
Mr. Jahangir 11.11.1965 
IMSB 1-9/4, 02.01.2011
Khan 
 
Islamabad
325. Mr. Farooq 06.01.1963 
IMSB, 
G- 02.01.2011
Khan 
6/4,
Islamabad
14.
The respondent before the Tribunal has not taken up
any issue on granting him promotion from TOT (BPS- 16) to that of
SST (BPS-17), which was with effect from 01.01.2011. He was
then given time scale promotion through Notification dated
11.04.2013 from BPS-17 to BPS-18 with effect from 02.01.2011,
which is the very next day from the effective date of his promotion
from TGT (BPS-16) to SST (BPS-17). The respondent's claim was
that he should have been granted one premature increment on the
grant of time scale promotion from BPS-17 to BPS-18.
15.
The perusal of the Notification dated 11.04.2013 shows
that it was issued in pursuance of Finance Division's Office
Memorandum dated 18.02.2011 and Establishment Division's
Office Memorandum dated 19.09.2011. The Establishment
Division specifically noted in the said O.M. that time scale formula
is simply grant of higher grade without any change in designation
of posts and does not involve up-gradation of posts and
amendment in recruit rules. This very wording of the O.M. dated
(4.551) of 2020
19.09.2011 was incorporated in the Notification dated
11.04.2013, for that, the word "in pursuance" as noted in this
notification, has been defined in various dictionaries as follows:-
• 
Black's Law Dictionary Tenth Edition:
"Pursuant to": 1. in compliance with; in accordance with;
under. 2. As. authorized by; under. 3. In carrying out.
• 
Collins English Dictionary:
"Pursuant: the carrying out or pursuing of an action, plan,
etc.
• 
Words And Phrases (Permanent Edition) Vol. 35-A 2.337
The expression "pursuant to" or "in pursuance of' have a
restrictive interpretation and have been regarded as
equivalent to "in conformity with", and imply that what is
done in accordance with an instruction or direction.
Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 738 p.567
"Pursuance": A carrying out or with effect; the act of
executing; that which is pursuant; consequence; a following
after, or following out.
"Pursuant": As an adjective "Pursuant" is defined as
meaning acting or done in consequence or in prosecution
(of anything); done in accordance with, or by reason of,
something, hence agreeable to, conformable to, according
to, following, in accordance with, in conformity with, in a
similar manner or by like method."
In the case of Aircraft Employees Housing Cooperative
Rai, Government of Karnat a Bangalore and Ors 1(1996) 11 5CC
4751, though in the context of the pre-amended Land Acquisition
Act, Supreme Court of India has dealt with the meaning of the
expression "in pursuance or as under:-
S
16
10-
.1
1
"In pursuance of' would mean under the authority of or by virtue
of or in the course of carrying out in accordance with the scheme
or plan or direction or order or anything in consequence or
LA. 550 of 2020
-11-
conformable to or according to; act of pursuing, carrying out and
performance, prosecution"
17 
Thus, the Notification dated 11.04.2013 was issued in
execution and in compliance with the O.M. dated 19.09.201 1 and
such O.M. being part of the Notification dated 11.04.2013, the 
ii
respondent in order to succeed in his claim that while granting
him time scale promotion, the same was a promotion and he was
entitled to grant of one premature increment, the very Notification
dated 11.04.2013 was required to be challenged by the
respondent, for that, the Notification as read, specifically noted
the office memorandum of the Establishment Division that time
scale promotion was neither a promotion nor up-gradation Until
and unless the vires and legality of such notification is challenged
and he succeeds in having the said notification set aside to the
extent that the grant of time scale promotion does not allow him
promotion, the relief of grant of premature increment being
subjected to the condition of promotion, and such prayer having
not been made by the respondent in his memo of appeal before
the Tribunal and the Tribunal also having not considered this very
aspect of the matter that the respondent has not challenged the
Notification dated 11.04.2013, the Tribunal could not in the
presence of the Notification dated 11.04.2013 allow the claim of
the respondent for grant of premature increment.
18. Having thus, noted that the very Notification dated
11.04.2013 on which the respondent has based his claim for
granting him premature increment was the very document which
was the hurdle in his way of claiming it to be a promotion or up-
adation, unless such document is removed from the scene, the
CA.550 of 2020 
- 12-
relief claimed by the respondent ought not to have been granted
by the Tribunal Reference in this regard is made to the case of
PESCO, WAPDA House through Chief Executive vs. Ishfa g Khan
and others (2021 SCMR 637)
 
19. The learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has
referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Government of
the Pun jab through Secretaru Services, Pun jab, Lahore and 4 others
v. Muhammad Awais Shahid and 4 others (1991 SCMR 696). It
may be noted that this very judgment of this Court came into
consideration before a 3-Member Bench of this Court in the case
of Muhammad Ashraf and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan
through Secretanj, Ministry of Railwags, Islamabad and others
(2000 SCMR 477), where it was distinguished on the point that it
was based upon the interpretation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the
Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977, which provided
that in case where for same or similar post apart from the
ordinary pay scale, a higher pay scale has been provided for a
percentage of the said post, the grant of the said higher scale shall
be deemed to be a promotion in the Punjab Civil Servants
(Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The case of
the respondent before the Tribunal was not that a certain
percentage of posts of BPS- 17 have been given higher pay scale of
BPS-18, rather the very Notification dated 11.04.2013, shows that
all incumbents of BPS-17, who have completed five years' service
were granted time scale promotion. The very name of the
respondent at Serial No.308 shows that it was granted across the
board. No element of even selection was involved.
(L4.550 012020
A1 The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has also
referred to the order of this Court dated 04.04.2017, passed in the
case of Ministrq of Finance through its Secretarzi, Islamabad vs.
Muhammad Is rail. Superintendent and another (Civil Appeals
No.2290-2298 of 2016 and CMAs No.4077-4085 of 2016). The
said order of this Court is distinguishable on facts for the reason
that the O.M. dated 04.07.2012, which was floated by the
Establishment Division for the approval of the competent
authority i.e. Prime Minister, contained, inter alia, one time grant
of BPS-17 to all Superintendents working in (BPS-16) irrespective
of their length of service and such O.M. having been approved by
the Prime Minister, the further O.M. dated 10.09.20 14 issued by
the Finance Division limiting its application, providing for fitness
of a candidate and recommendation of relevant DPC, and
disallowing grant of premature increment and not allowing change
in the entitlement/ admissibility of rental ceiling/house rent
allowance/ medical allowance, the inroad made by the Finance
Division, in the approval given by the Prime Minister by the O.M
dated 04.07.20 12 and thus, it was found that the O.M. dated
10.09.2014, could not have altered or impeded the application of
the approval of the Prime Minister and benefit flowing from it. The
relevant para of the order of this Court is as follows: -
3. We have considered the submission of the learned
DAG and have posed him a question to show us from the
approved summary of the Prime Minister the conditions
which are mentioned in paragraph-2 of the Office
Memorandum dated 10.09.2014. The learned DAG was
unable to give any satisfactory answer and could not assign
any reason as to from where and on what basis the
conditions mentioned in paragraph-2 of Office
CA .550 of 2020 
-14-
Memorandum dated 10.09.2014 were introduced. He
agreed that in the summary approved by the Prime Minister
no such conditions are mentioned. On the basis of such
assertion of the learned DAG and the Office Memorandum
dated 04.07.2012, the approved summary of the Prime
Minister it can justly and fairly be stated that the
conditions introduced and mentioned in paragraph-2 of
Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2014 were not a part of
approval granted by the Prime Minister and that this has
subsequently been added by the Finance Division
(Regulation Wing) on its own and to us such addition of
conditions to the approval of the Prime Minister reflects
that some higher authority above the Prime Minister has
imposed these conditions, which otherwise were not so
mentioned in the approval of the Prime Minister. This
seems to be not only contemptuous to the order of the
Prime Minister but is a case of grave and serious
insubordination in that the Office Memorandum dated
10.09.2014 on its face does not in real terms and in real
spirit make compliance of the order of the Prime Minister
rather deviate from it altogether.
21 We may also note that this Court in its judgment dated
12.09.2018 in the case of Khushdil Khan Malik vs. Secretary,
Establishment Division Cabinet Block, Islamabad and others (2021
SCMR 1496) has specifically considered the very O.M. dated
19.09.2011 of the Establishment Division and has observed as
follows:-
"Now adverting to another contention of the petitioner
that benefits under Time Scale Formula may be
granted to him, it is essential to consider the 'terms
and conditions of service of the petitioner under the
Act of 1973 read with the Civil Servants (Appointment,
Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 hereinafter
referred to as Rules 1973. The petitioner being a civil
servant was appointed under the Act of 1973 and
transferred and promoted under the procedure and
c_d!_550 of 2020
-15-
conditions prescribed under the same Act and Rules
1973. The Act of 1973 doesn't define the term Time
Scale Promotion'; therefore it cannot be considered as
a term and condition of service Promotion on the
basis of Time Scale is not a regular promotion but a
matter of policy granted to specific categories of
professions by the relevant competent authority with
the concurrence of the Finance Division. Such a policy
is meant to grant benefits of higher pay scales to those
cadres of civil servants which do not ordinarily get
promotions to higher grades under the Rules, 1973 on
a regular basis. The monetary benefits under the Time
Scale Formula cannot be extended generally to all civil
servants but to class of civil servants as mentioned in
the approved policy. The Establishment Division,
expressly mentioned in Office Memorandum dated
19.09.2011, that Time Scale Formula is simply the
grant of financial benefits of a higher pay scale without
change in designation of the post and does not
tantamount to up-gradation of the said post nor
requires amendment in the recruitment rules. It was
further clarified by the Finance Division, vide letter
dated 10.09.2013, that even after the grant of higher
time scale the incumbent continues to hold the same
Post without there being any change in its status. The
explicit conditions of the Time Scale Formula as
mentioned in the relevant policy make it crystal clear
that it does not tantamount to regular promotion
under the Rules, 1973."
22. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered
view that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal suffers from
grave illegality, for that, it did not apply mind to the relevant facts
and circumstances of the matter, rather deviated itself in relying
upon the O.M. dated 29.06.1991 of the Finance Division and also
I
- -- -------- --.---
-
Thus, this Court has held in the above judgment that grant of
time scale promotion is not a promotion in terms of Rules of 1973
CA, 550 012020
-16-
the letter dated 30.11.2016 of the Finance Division, which were
not germane to the case, and termed the grant of time scale
promotion as a promotion in service, thus, the same cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside.
23. 
The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is, therefore,
set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Bench-I
Islamabad
10.03.2021
'APPROVED FOR REPORTING'
Rabbanj/ *
Announced in open Court on #4 /11j2021