The Supreme Court has held that seniority of a civil servant on initial appointment to a service, cadre or post has to be reckoned from the date of his joining the post after being recommended by the selection authority and not from a date prior thereto. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Mushir Alam and comprised Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, on May 30 after hearing the appeal of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) against Federal Service Tribunal, reserved the judgement.
The judgement authored by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah said: "The provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of Act, 1973 if read in conjunction with rule 2(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules, 1993 leaves no doubt in our minds that the seniority of a civil servant on initial appointment to a service, cadre or post has to be reckoned from the date of his joining the post after being recommended by the Selection Authority and not from a date prior thereto."
"Even Rule 7 of the Seniority Rules, 1990 empowers the government to determine the seniority of the probationers after final passing-out examination," it added. Muhammad Asfandyar Janjua (respondent) after requisite training and on completion of five years mandatory service on 6.9.2012 was promoted from BS-17 to BS-18. He claimed to have been aggrieved when the Departmental Selection Board in its meeting held on 26.11.2014 did not recommend his name for promotion from BS-18 to BS-19 for want of 12 years mandatory service in BS-17, which length of service according to the department (FBR), the respondent would complete on 26.8.2019. Asfandyar consequently approached the Federal Service Tribunal which gave verdict in his favour.
The judgement said in the instant case the respondent; consequent to the offer of appointment letter dated 22.2.2007 joined the Civil Services Academy Lahore on 6.1.2008 and successfully completed training on 1.9.2009 with 35th Common Training Programme (CTP). However, he has been given seniority by treating him one of the 25th CTP.
The court noted that neither seniority nor promotion is the vested right of a civil servant, therefore, neither any seniority nor any promotion could be claimed or granted without actual length of service on account of vested rights. The purpose of prescribing a particular length of service for becoming entitled to be considered for promotion to a higher grade, of course, is not without logic as the officer who is initially inducted to a particular post needs to actually serve on the said post in order to gain experience to hold the next higher post and to serve the public in a befitting manner.
It is also important to note that grant of seniority to a civil servant without actual length of service virtually violates the entire service structure as a civil servant inducted in grade-17 by claiming such benefit without any experience be directly posted in any higher grade, which is neither the intention of the law nor of the equity.
The court noted that the respondent's request to waive off the minimum length of service of five years for promotion to BS-18 was declined on 1.3.2010. However, the competent authority on 12.3.2012 while exercising powers conferred under Rule 8-B of the Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 promoted the respondent to BS-18 on "acting charge basis" as he was otherwise eligible for promotion but, was short of minimum required length of service and later, on completion of five years of mandatory service he was regularised in BS-18 on 6.9.2009.