ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the state is required to act as a model employer, particularly in matters affecting promotion and service entitlements and rights, and cannot justify inaction or delay on the basis of internal inefficiencies.
It also noted that where the government acts as an employer, it is held to a higher standard of fairness, reasonableness and accountability.
“Public institutions and government functionaries are under a duty to ensure that promotion processes are conducted timely, rationally and in accordance with law, rather than allowing delay or inaction to defeat legitimate service rights and compel recourse to courts for relief that ought to have been granted in the ordinary course,” a seven-page judgement authored by Justice Ayesha Malik said while setting aside the Punjab Service Tribunal’s decision to deny the promotion of Grade 14 employee of Irrigation department.
A three-judge bench of Supreme Court led by Justice Ayesha noted that the tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was unjustifiably deprived of the promotion to the post of draftsman (BPS-14) from the date of convening of first Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) that is January 21, 2012. The order noted that the promotion shall take effect from January 21, 2012.
The court noted that, according to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025, Pakistan ranks 130th out of 143 countries in overall rule-of-law performance, while in the civil justice factorwhich measures accessibility, effectiveness of delivery and the absence of unreasonable delayit ranks 129th out of 143 countries.
“Similarly, the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) developed by the World Bank treat government effectiveness as a core measure of good governance, focusing on the quality of public administration, the competence of the civil service, and the capacity of institutions to implement decisions in a timely and predictable manner, in respect of which Pakistan’s percentile rank stands at 31 out of 100. In this context, global standards of public administration indicate how civil service systems are expected to function in accordance with principles of good governance. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Principles of Public Administration emphasize a merit-based civil service and require that career management processes, including promotion, operate through clear, predictable and timely procedures.
“The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Principles of Effective Governance emphasize effectiveness, accountability and transparency in the administration of public employment.
Additionally, Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG-16) underscores the importance of effective, accountable and transparent public institutions, and emphasizes that good governance is assessed by the capacity of State institutions to perform their functions in an effective and reliable manner.”
The judgement noted that measured against these standards, the failure of Punjab Irrigation department to allow the petitioner to continue on current charge for several years, reflects administrative inaction and institutional inefficiency. Such failure cannot be allowed to operate to the prejudice of a civil servant who was otherwise eligible.
“In reiterating international standards and commitments, the purpose is to remind the State of the obligations it has undertaken and the need for institutional compliance with principles of effective, fair and accountable public administration that are followed globally. Such obligations reinforce the requirement that promotion processes be conducted in a timely and transparent manner, and that eligible civil servants are not prejudiced by administrative neglect,” the judgement said.
The court also said that promotion is a natural progression in the service of a civil servant.
“It is an integral incident of service and every civil servant who fulfils the prescribed criteria of fitness, eligibility and seniority has a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion within a reasonable time. When its grant is delayed due to inefficiency, poor administration or inaction, it adversely impacts the civil servants’ right to be considered and a failure to meet this expectation, without lawful justification, constitutes arbitrariness and procedural unfairness,” the judgement said.
“Where promotion is lost solely on account of administrative oversight such as a delay in convening the DPC, despite eligibility, fairness requires that the omission be remedied. Unjustified delay in promotion matters causes serious hardship to civil servants, particularly those nearing or after retirement, and leads to avoidable and repetitive litigation,” it added.
“Sanctioned posts exist to meet defined functional needs and must be filled promptly so long as they remain operative and are not lawfully frozen or abolished.”
The court noted that in this case, the petitioner was holding current charge of the post from 2008 until 2019 when he was actually promoted to the post which also speaks volumes with regard to the delay and the negligence on part of the respondents (provincial departments), who allowed him to work on current charge basis but did not consider him for promotion to the post in 2012 when a DPC was held.
“The delay, therefore, cannot be attributed to the Petitioner. It is totally the result of negligence and inefficiency of the department and in terms of the law laid down by this Court that a civil servant does not bear the consequences of internal administrative lapses.
“Unexplained delay in decision-making that affects career progression is in itself a form of injustice. It denies an eligible civil servant timely consideration for promotion, undermines merit-based progression, and places the individual in a prolonged state of uncertainty. Such delay impairs equality of opportunity within the service and cannot be treated as a mere administrative lapse. The delay on the part of the Respondents for promotion purposes amounts to a denial of fair and equal treatment in accordance with law and violates Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution,” the judgement read.
The order noted that the state cannot therefore rely on the law to defend its own inaction or inefficiency to deny fair consideration for advancement once the prescribed eligibility criteria are met.
