ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that where a statute affects a substantive right, it operates prospectively unless, by express enactment or necessary intendment, the retrospective operation has been given.
“The insertion or deletion of any provision in the rules or the law, if merely procedural in nature would apply retrospectively but not if it affects substantial rights which already stood accrued at the time when the un-amended rule or provision was in vogue.”
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and comprising Justice Aminud Din and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, ruled this on an appeal of Controller General of Accounts (CGA) Islamabad, against the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore judgment.
“The statutes will not be given retroactive construction, unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary,” the judgment further said.
The employees of the CGA (respondents) had qualified for the Pakistan Institute of Public Finance Accountants (PIPFA) examination before convening the DPC meeting (17-06-2020); therefore, were qualified and eligible to be considered fairly; however, on denial, they preferred departmental appeals, which were rejected on 05.05.2021 with the observation that the cases of promotion will be considered in the next DPC meeting subject to the availability of vacancies.
Supreme Court declares new Reko Diq mine deal legal
They then approached the Federal Service Tribunal that they were not considered for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-17) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting convened in the year.
The Tribunal ruled in the favour of the employees directing the department to consider the respondents for promotion.
The CGA challenged the verdict before the apex court.
It was the stance of the Additional Attorney General for Pakistan that the amendments made in the Recruitment Rules for the posts in the office of the Controller General of Accounts notified vide SRO 690(I)/ 2020 dated 02.06.2021 (Amendatory SRO).
On the other hand, the respondent-employees entreated that their claim of promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-17) was to be considered with effect from the 17.06.2020 when their juniors were promoted to the said post.
The Court noted that the amendments in the Recruitment Rules for the posts in the office of the CGA were made vide the Amendatory SRO pursuant to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 and Section 7 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 (XLV of 1977).
The Court further observed that the Rules by dint of which the Recruitment Rules were amended are general in nature which elucidate the method of appointment and the matters relating to qualifications for recruitment to the services and posts, but have nothing to do with the effective date, either prospective or retrospective, for which well-settled rules of interpretation shall apply to understand the pith and substance of amendments made in the existing rules of service regarding whether it can affect vested rights or not.
The SC’s judgment upheld the Tribunal’s decision, saying it has rightly recorded its findings that those who qualified the PIPFA exam before the DPC meeting, their cases shall not be regulated by the amended rules for promotion.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.