AIRLINK 74.85 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (0.75%)
BOP 4.98 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.61%)
CNERGY 4.49 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.75%)
DFML 40.00 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (3.09%)
DGKC 86.35 Increased By ▲ 1.53 (1.8%)
FCCL 21.36 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.71%)
FFBL 33.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-0.79%)
FFL 9.72 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.21%)
GGL 10.45 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.29%)
HBL 112.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-0.23%)
HUBC 137.44 Increased By ▲ 1.24 (0.91%)
HUMNL 11.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.48 (-4.03%)
KEL 5.28 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (12.1%)
KOSM 4.63 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (4.28%)
MLCF 37.80 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.4%)
OGDC 139.50 Increased By ▲ 3.30 (2.42%)
PAEL 25.61 Increased By ▲ 0.51 (2.03%)
PIAA 20.68 Increased By ▲ 1.44 (7.48%)
PIBTL 6.80 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.34%)
PPL 122.20 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.08%)
PRL 26.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.26%)
PTC 14.05 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.86%)
SEARL 58.98 Increased By ▲ 1.76 (3.08%)
SNGP 68.95 Increased By ▲ 1.35 (2%)
SSGC 10.30 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.49%)
TELE 8.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.24%)
TPLP 11.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.63%)
TRG 64.19 Increased By ▲ 1.38 (2.2%)
UNITY 26.55 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.19%)
WTL 1.45 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (7.41%)
BR100 7,841 Increased By 30.9 (0.4%)
BR30 25,465 Increased By 315.4 (1.25%)
KSE100 75,114 Increased By 157.8 (0.21%)
KSE30 24,114 Increased By 30.8 (0.13%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that the promotion order of a government employee cannot be withdrawn due to defect in the proceedings on the part of concerned department.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