NUDRAT BULAND IQBAL vs PROVINCE OF SINDH 'Upgradation of post' and 'promotion'

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NUDRAT BULAND IQBAL VS PROVINCE OF SINDH 'Upgradation of post' and 'promotion'---Scope and distinction---Upgradation cannot be claimed as a matter of right but it is in fact based on a policy decision of the competent authority for its implementation across the board for the particular categories of employees jotted down in the scheme/notification who fulfilled the required qualification which is normally a particular length of service in a particular pay scale---The promotion involves advancement in rank, grade or a footstep en-route for advancement to higher position, whereas the facility or benefit of upgradation simply confers some monetary benefits by granting a higher pay scale to ventilate stagnation---Benefit of upgradation is normally granted to the persons stuck-up in one pay-scale for considerable period of their length of service either having no venue for promotion or progression---In order to minimize the anguish or suffering being stuck-up in particular pay scale for a sizeable period, the mechanism of up-gradation as a policy decision comes in field for redress and rescue. Upgradation of post---Withdrawal of upgradation/downgrading, challenge to---Upgradation lacking legal basis which did not create vested rights---Upgradation to a post does not automatically lead to promotion---Scope---The petitioners were audit/account officers who were upgraded from BPS-16 to BPS-17 in 2013---This upgrade remained in place for over six years, whereafter, through an office order the upgradation was withdrawnby downgrading the petitioners to BPS-16---Petitioners claimed the upgradation was policy-based, not person-specific, and its withdrawal violated natural justice and lacked lawful authority---They also challenged the legality of appointments of certain governing body members and sought regularization and further upgradation to BPS-18---Held: In 2013 there was no specific "Upgradation Policy" relevant to the petitioners, nonetheless, it was a standard legal principle that any upgraded position required corresponding amendments to its recruitment rules, detailing the method of recruitment and necessary qualifications which rules should also lay out the procedure for such upgrades---A key point was that an upgraded post did not automatically lead to the incumbent's promotion---Notably, the 2023 recruitment rules which categorized the position in question as promotion-based, meaning direct "upgradation" was no longer applicable---However, re-grading (a change in the grade of a post) might have still occurred---This shift in policy which led to recalling the petitioners' earlier upgradation was potentially to align with the Supreme Court's decision and the updated rules---Upgradation issued in 2013 did not create a vested right for the petitioners, as it lacked legal sanction or authority---Therefore, the doctrine of locus poenitentiae (the ability to withdraw a flawed decision) did not apply---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Upgradation of post' and 'promotion'---Distinction---Up-gradation refers to improving a position's grade, often to address issues like stagnation for employees in roles with no clear promotion path, despite long and satisfactory service---Promotion, on the other hand, typically involves moving to a higher position within an established career ladder. Benefit incorrectly granted due to misunderstanding, error, misinterpretation of law, or lack of proper authority is not sacrosanct and can be withdrawn---A wrongful benefit extended beyond the bounds of law and policy cannot be claimed indefinitely. Upgradation of post---Withdrawal of upgradation/downgrading---Doctrine of locus poenitentiae, applicability of---Where upgradation lackslegal sanction or authority, it does not confer vested rights in favour of the employee,and in such circumstances, doctrine of locus poenitentiae (the ability to withdraw a flawed decision) would not apply. Upgradation of post---Pre-conditions---Upgradation cannot be made to benefit a particular individual in terms of promoting him to a higher post or further providing him with the avenues of lateral appointment or transfer or posting---In order to justify the upgradation, the government is required to establish that the department needs restructuring, reform or to meet the exigency of service in public interest---In the absence of these pre-conditions, upgradation is not permissible.

NUDRAT BULAND IQBAL vs PROVINCE OF SINDH 'Upgradation of post' and 'promotion' — 2025 PLC(CS) 1163 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC