ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that the 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 written in the scheme/notification.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed heard an appeal against the judgment delivered by Peshawar High Court in a case Fida Muhammad verses government of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa secretary of education, Peshawar, and others.
The judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, held that there is a meticulous differentiation stuck between upgradation and promotion, adding that promotion involves advancement in rank, grade or a footstep en route for advancement to (a) higher position whereas the facility or benefit of upgradation simply confers some monetary benefits by granting a higher pay scale to ventilate stagnation.
The court held that in an upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale.
“It is also well settled exposition of law that the benefit of upgradation is normally granted to the persons stuck-up in one pay scale for a considerable period of their length of service either having no venue for promotion or progression,” the judgment said.
The court ruled that in order to minimise the anguish or suffering being stuck up in the particular pay scale for a sizeable period, the mechanism of upgradation as a policy decision comes in the field for redress and rescue.
As per the case, the appellant Fida Muhammad was appointed as CT in (BPS-09) on September 15, 1987 and he was promoted to the post of SET/SST (BPS-16) on July 24, 2003.
He reached the age of superannuation on 4.5.16 after qualifying 29 years of service and his pension was calculated on the basis of his last pay in BPS-16. The appellant lodged his grievance that he was not accorded the benefit of notification dated 26.1.08 issued by KP government whereby up-gradation was allowed to SET/SST (BPS-16 to BPS-17) on completing 10 years of service. The court noted that it was clearly emanating from the notification dated January 26, 2008 that it was not an open-ended or without any cut-off date decision but the upgradation scheme of the incumbents was made effective from October 1, 2007.
“That meant that in the case of appellant at least 10 years of service was required in BPS-16 for upgradation to BPS-17 from October 1, 2007 and since his length of service was not commensurate to the stipulated conditions hence he was not considered for upgradation,” the court held.
The court observed that during the course of hearing, the counsel representing the appellant candidly admitted that length of service of the appellant was less than 10 years in BPS-16 at the time of notification issued for upgradation.
“In the wake of the above discussion, we do not find any justification for interference in the impugned judgment and the appeal is dismissed,” the court concluded. “This court in the case of Regional Commissioner Income Tax versus Syed Munawar Ali C.A.465 of 2021(2016 SCMR 859) held that the expression “upgradation” is distinct from the promotion which is not defined either in the Civil Servants Act or the rules framed thereunder which is restricted to the posts and not with the person occupying it,” the court ruled.
Similarly, the court recalled that in the case of Federal Public Service Commission through Secretary vs. Anwar-ul-Haq (Private Secretary) Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 890), this court held that up-gradation is carried out under a policy and specified scheme.
“It is resorted only for the incumbents of isolated posts, which have no avenues or channel of promotion at all,” the court ruled, adding that up-gradation under the scheme is personal to the incumbents of the isolated posts to address stagnation and frustration of incumbent on a particular post for sufficient length of service on particular post without any progression or avenue of promotion.
The court held that it is clearly emanating from the notification dated 26.1.08 that it was not an open ended or without any cut-off date decision but upgradation scheme of the incumbents was made effective from 1.10.07, meaning thereby that in the case of appellant at least 10 years of service was required in BPS-16 for upgradation in BPS-17 from 1.10.07 and since his length of service was not commensurate to the stipulated conditions hence he was not considered for upgradation. “In the wake of above discussion, we do not find any justification for interference in the impugned judgment and the appeal is dismissed,” the judgment concluded.