AGL 38.50 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.05%)
AIRLINK 198.05 Decreased By ▼ -4.97 (-2.45%)
BOP 9.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.35 (-3.44%)
CNERGY 6.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-3.98%)
DCL 9.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-2.4%)
DFML 39.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-1.8%)
DGKC 97.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.83 (-0.85%)
FCCL 35.00 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.11%)
FFBL 85.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.43 (-1.65%)
FFL 13.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-2.66%)
HUBC 128.10 Decreased By ▼ -3.47 (-2.64%)
HUMNL 13.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1%)
KEL 5.17 Decreased By ▼ -0.44 (-7.84%)
KOSM 7.40 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.79%)
MLCF 44.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-1.84%)
NBP 60.52 Decreased By ▼ -5.86 (-8.83%)
OGDC 214.76 Decreased By ▼ -6.00 (-2.72%)
PAEL 39.24 Increased By ▲ 0.76 (1.98%)
PIBTL 8.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-4.15%)
PPL 192.21 Decreased By ▼ -5.67 (-2.87%)
PRL 38.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.33%)
PTC 25.50 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.12%)
SEARL 103.80 Increased By ▲ 0.75 (0.73%)
TELE 8.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-4.55%)
TOMCL 36.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.3%)
TPLP 13.86 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.8%)
TREET 24.64 Decreased By ▼ -0.48 (-1.91%)
TRG 57.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.04 (-1.79%)
UNITY 33.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.42 (-1.25%)
WTL 1.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-6.43%)
BR100 11,792 Decreased By -97.8 (-0.82%)
BR30 36,683 Decreased By -673.3 (-1.8%)
KSE100 109,133 Decreased By -1937.6 (-1.74%)
KSE30 34,254 Decreased By -655.1 (-1.88%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that the promotion order of a government employee cannot be withdrawn due to defect in the proceedings on the part of concerned department.

The court passed this order on a petition of Muhammad Zahid Saleem who was retired as assistance finance from Tehsil Municipal Administrations (TMAs) TT Singh and observed that the defect in the promotion proceedings is not attributable to the petitioner rather it was a fault or irregularity on the part of department.

The court said in such a situation, the promotion order is protected under the principles of vested right “past & closed transaction”. The respondent authorities in the impugned order had declared that petitioner’s promotion as assistant was not valid under the relevant rules, therefore, he will receive the pension against the post of senior clerk and not assistant finance.

The court allowing the petition set aside the impugned orders passed by respondent authorities being illegal and without lawful authority.

The court directed the respondent authorities to extend the pensionary benefits to the petitioner against the post of assistant finance with effect from the date of his retirement.

The court observed that it is well settled law that in absence of any fraud, misrepresentation or fault on the part of an employee in promotion proceedings, he cannot be deprived of his right of pensionary benefits after lapse of considerable period.

The petitioner was appointed as clerk in Municipal Committee, TT Singh, and was promoted as senior clerk. Subsequently, after promulgation of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, Tehsil Municipal Administrations (TMAs) were established and District Councils were dissolved. The petitioner was promoted to the post of assistant and his post was twice upgraded to BS-14 and to BS-16 and he stood retired as assistant finance.

The respondent authorities through the impugned order declined the representation of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits against the post of assistant finance, whereby his promotion as assistant was withdrawn and his retirement order was modified mentioning the retirement against the post of senior clerk. The petitioner challenged the orders in questions and got relief.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.