ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has held that the state is required to act as a model employer, particularly in matters affecting rights and entitlements to promotion and service, and cannot justify inaction or delay on the basis of internal inefficiencies.
He also noted that when the government acts as an employer, it is held to higher standards of fairness, reasonableness and accountability.
“Public institutions and government officials have a duty to ensure that promotion processes are carried out in a timely, rational manner and in accordance with law, rather than permitting delays or inaction which frustrate the legitimate rights of the service and compel recourse to courts for relief which should have been granted in a normal procedure,” said a seven-page judgment written by Justice Ayesha Malik, while setting aside the Punjab Administrative Tribunal’s decision to deny promotion from a 14th grade employee of the irrigation department.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Ayesha, noted that the court had failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was unjustifiably deprived of promotion to the post of Draftsman (BPS-14) from the date of convening of the first Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), i.e. January 21, 2012. The order stated that the promotion would take effect from January 21, 2012.
The court noted that according to the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2025, Pakistan ranks 130th out of 143 countries in terms of overall rule of law performance, while for the civil justice factor, which measures accessibility, efficiency of enforcement and freedom from unreasonable delay, it ranks 129th out of 143 countries.
“Similarly, the World Governance Indicators (WGI) developed by the World Bank considers government effectiveness as a key 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, for which Pakistan’s percentile rank is 31 out of 100. In this context, the global public administration standards indicate how civil service systems are expected to operate in accordance with the principles of good governance. The Co-operation and Development (OECD) Principles of Public Administration emphasize a merit-based public service and require that career management processes, including promotion, operate according to clear, predictable and timely procedures.
“The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Principles of Effective Governance emphasize efficiency, accountability and transparency in the administration of public employment.
Furthermore, Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG-16) highlights the importance of effective, accountable and transparent public institutions, and emphasizes that good governance is measured by the capacity of state institutions to fulfill their functions effectively and reliably.
The judgment notes that, by these standards, the failure of the Punjab Irrigation Department to allow the petitioner to continue in his current capacity for several years reflects administrative inaction and institutional inefficiency. Such a failure cannot be allowed to prejudice an otherwise eligible official.
“By reiterating international standards and commitments, the aim is to remind the State of the obligations it has undertaken and the need for institutional compliance with the principles of efficient, equitable and accountable public administration which are followed globally. Such obligations reinforce the requirement that promotion processes be carried out in a timely and transparent manner, and that eligible civil servants are not harmed by administrative negligence,” the judgment said.
The court also said that promotion is a natural progression in the service of a public servant.
“This is an integral incident of service and any public servant who meets the prescribed criteria of suitability, eligibility and seniority has a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion within a reasonable time. When its granting is delayed due to inefficiency, maladministration or inaction, it infringes the right of public servants to be considered and failure to meet this expectation, without legal justification, constitutes arbitrariness and procedural unfairness,” indicates the judgment.
“When promotion is lost solely due to administrative oversight such as delay in calling the DPC, despite eligibility, fairness demands that this omission be corrected. Undue delay in matters of promotion causes serious hardship to civil servants, especially those near or post-retirement, and leads to repetitive and avoidable litigation,” it adds.
“Sanctioned positions exist to meet defined functional needs and must be filled promptly as long as they remain operational and are not legally frozen or abolished.”
The court noted that in this case, the petitioner was serving in the present post from 2008 to 2019 when he was actually promoted to this post, which also speaks volumes about the delay and negligence on the part of the respondents (provincial departments), who allowed him to work on the basis of present charges but did not take into consideration his promotion to this post in 2012, while conducting a CPD.
“The delay, therefore, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is totally the result of the negligence and inefficiency of the ministry and in terms of the law laid down by this court that a public servant does not bear the consequences of internal administrative misconduct.
“Unexplained delay in decision-making that affects career progression is itself a form of injustice. It deprives an eligible official of timely consideration for promotion, jeopardizes progression based on merit, and places the individual in a prolonged state of uncertainty. Such delay undermines equality of opportunity within the service and cannot be treated as a mere administrative error. Respondents’ delay for purposes of promotion amounts to a denial of fair and equal treatment under the law and violates articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution,” the judgment reads.
The order emphasizes that the State therefore cannot rely on the law to defend its own inaction or ineffectiveness and deny fair consideration for advancement once the prescribed eligibility criteria are met.
