SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR

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

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR VS INAYAT ULLAH. Art. 212(3)---Civil service---Promotion---Entitlement---Departmental Promotion Committee---Meeting deferred by department---Revision of promotion rules during deferred period of meeting---Effect upon pending promotion cases---Department relying upon revised promotion rules---Legality---Entitlement determined under earlier rules. Briefly, the respondents were appointed as 'Sub Engineers' in the year 1986 and were later upgraded to BPS-16 from BPS-12. Upon becoming eligible under the then-applicable service rules, their working papers for promotion to the post of 'Assistant Engineer' in BPS-17 were prepared, but the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was deferred by the department on the ground that new promotion rules were under consideration. Subsequently, revised rules were notified, under which the respondents were declared ineligible for promotion, while their departmental appeals remained undecided, leading them to file service appeals before the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding them entitled to promotion in accordance with the rules applicable at the time they became eligible. The said judgment of Service Tribunal was challenged by the department before the Supreme Court through present civil petitions for leave to appeal. Held: Respondents had satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion pursuant to the rules enforced at the time of their initial appointment. Consequently, their cases were fully ripe for consideration by DPC. The subsequent delay in convening meeting of the DPC was an administrative failure attributable solely to the department and could not be imputed to the respondents. The subsequently amended rules were to operate prospectively unless a contrary intention was manifestly evident from the statute. Question of whether the amended rules were to be applied retrospectively or prospectively was beyond the scope of DPC's mandate. The DPC also did not have the authority to delay the meeting while waiting for amendment of the rules. Leave was declined and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR vs INAYAT ULLAH — 2026 SCMR 558 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR