The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment in a case related to upgradation and premature increments to the employees of Federal Directorate of Education (FDE).
The SC sought a detailed report from the secretaries of Finance, Education and Establishment, who appeared before the court, within a week containing all the notifications. A three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi heard the case.
Additional Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhatti informed the court that the employees of the Ministry of Education were upgraded from grade 9 to 14, 14 to 16 and 16 to 17 on the prime minister’s directive. A time scale policy was adopted for the upgradation of employees, he added.
The AAG said it was decided to upgrade those employees who had served five years in grade 16 to grade 17, and those who had 10-year experience in grade 16, to grade 18.
He said the employees were demanding that premature increment should also be given considering the time scale promotion. The standard of promotion and upgradation was different, he added.
The CJP observed that the time scale promotion was not mentioned in the notification cited by the AAG. Writing of the word ‘promotion’ instead of ‘upgradation’ in the notification had created all the confusion, he added.
He said the government authorities should be careful in their choice of words for communication. The same words should be used in official correspondence as were used in the Civil Servant Rules.
He asked the Secretary Establishment as to how much such mistakes might cost the national kitty. The individuals (government officials) had no problem as the money did not go out of their pockets as a single (wrong) sentence might put a burden of billions of rupees on the government. Such a sorry state of affairs prevailed, he added.
The Supreme Court, he observed, had ruled that upgradation would not be considered promotion.
He remarked that the Establishment Division was not improving its working, rather it was deliberately creating such problems. The court could order a forensic audit of the affairs of both Establishment and Finance divisions.
Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan said promotion and upgradation had their own issues. The employees said the word ‘promotion’ had been used in the notification, he added.
He asked the Secretary Finance as to how much the premature increment (to employees) would cost the national exchequer.
The AAG said regular promotion, upgradation and time scale promotion were different things.
Justice Ijaz said promotion would only be considered when the employee’s job responsibilities were changed.
