AIRLINK 204.45 Increased By ▲ 3.55 (1.77%)
BOP 10.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.59%)
CNERGY 6.91 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.44%)
FCCL 34.83 Increased By ▲ 0.74 (2.17%)
FFL 17.21 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (1.35%)
FLYNG 24.52 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (2%)
HUBC 137.40 Increased By ▲ 5.70 (4.33%)
HUMNL 13.82 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.44%)
KEL 4.91 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (2.08%)
KOSM 6.70 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 44.31 Increased By ▲ 0.98 (2.26%)
OGDC 221.91 Increased By ▲ 3.16 (1.44%)
PACE 7.09 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.58%)
PAEL 42.97 Increased By ▲ 1.43 (3.44%)
PIAHCLA 17.08 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.06%)
PIBTL 8.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.69%)
POWER 9.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.99%)
PPL 190.60 Increased By ▲ 3.48 (1.86%)
PRL 43.04 Increased By ▲ 0.98 (2.33%)
PTC 25.04 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.2%)
SEARL 106.41 Increased By ▲ 6.11 (6.09%)
SILK 1.02 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.99%)
SSGC 42.91 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (1.37%)
SYM 18.31 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (1.84%)
TELE 9.14 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.33%)
TPLP 13.11 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.39%)
TRG 68.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.32%)
WAVESAPP 10.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.49%)
WTL 1.87 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.54%)
YOUW 4.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.97%)
BR100 12,137 Increased By 188.4 (1.58%)
BR30 37,146 Increased By 778.3 (2.14%)
KSE100 115,272 Increased By 1435.3 (1.26%)
KSE30 36,311 Increased By 549.3 (1.54%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that the promotion order of a government employee cannot be withdrawn due to defect in the proceedings on the part of concerned department.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