ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the State must act as a model employer, particularly in matters affecting promotion and service rights and benefits, and cannot justify inaction or delays based on internal inefficiencies.
He also noted that when the government acts as an employer, it is held to a higher standard of fairness, reasonableness and responsibility.
“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 allowing delay or inaction to defeat legitimate rights of service and force recourse to courts for compensation that should have been awarded in the ordinary course,” said a seven-page judgment written by Justice Ayesha Malik while setting aside the Punjab Service Court’s decision to deny promotion to a grade employee 14 of the Irrigation department.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Ayesha noted that the court did not take into account the fact that the petitioner was unjustifiably deprived of promotion to the post of Draftsman (BPS-14) from the date of convocation of the first Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), i.e. January 21, 2012. The order noted that the promotion will 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 among 143 countries in overall rule of law performance, while in the civil justice factor, which measures accessibility, effectiveness of delivery and freedom from unreasonable delays, it ranks 129th among 143 countries.
“Similarly, the World 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 public administration and the capacity of institutions to implement decisions in a timely and predictable manner, with respect to which Pakistan’s percentile stands at 31 out of 100. In this context, global public administration standards indicate how public administration systems are expected to perform in accordance with the principles of good governance The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Public Administration Principles emphasize merit-based public administration and require that career management processes, including promotion, operate through clear, predictable and timely procedures.
“The Principles of Effective Governance of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs emphasize effectiveness, accountability and transparency in the administration of public employment.
Furthermore, Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG-16) underlines the importance of having effective, accountable and transparent public institutions, and emphasizes that good governance is assessed by the capacity of state institutions to perform their functions effectively and reliably.
The judgment noted that compared to these standards, the failure of the Punjab Irrigation Department to allow the petitioner to continue in his current position for several years reflects administrative inaction and institutional inefficiency. Such failure cannot be allowed to harm an otherwise eligible public official.
“By reiterating international standards and commitments, the purpose is to remind the State of the obligations it has assumed and the need for institutional compliance with the principles of effective, fair and responsible public administration that are followed globally. Such obligations reinforce the requirement that promotion processes be carried out in a timely and transparent manner, and that eligible public officials are not harmed by administrative negligence,” the ruling says.
The court also said that promotion is a natural progression in the service of a public servant.
“It is an integral incident of service and every public servant who meets the prescribed criteria of suitability, eligibility and seniority has a legitimate expectation of being considered for promotion within a reasonable time. When its grant is delayed due to inefficiency, maladministration or inaction, it adversely affects the right of public servants to be considered and failure to meet this expectation, without legal justification, constitutes arbitrariness and procedural injustice,” the judgment said.
“When promotion is forfeited solely due to administrative oversight, such as a delay in convening the DPC, despite eligibility, justice requires that the omission be remedied. Unwarranted delay in promotion matters causes serious hardship to public servants, particularly those close to or post-retirement, and leads to avoidable and repetitive litigation,” it added.
“Authorized positions exist to meet defined functional needs and must be filled quickly as long as they remain operational and are not frozen or legally abolished.”
The court noted that in this case, the petitioner was in charge of the post from 2008 to 2019, when he was actually promoted to the post, which also speaks volumes regarding the delay and negligence on the part of the respondents (provincial departments), who allowed him to work with the current post but did not consider him for promotion to the post in 2012 when a DPC was carried out.
“The delay, therefore, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is entirely the result of negligence and inefficiency of the department and in terms of the law established by this Court that a public official does not bear the consequences of internal administrative errors.
“Unexplained delay in decision-making affecting career advancement is itself a form of injustice. It denies an eligible officer 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. Delay by 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,” reads the ruling.
The order noted that, therefore, the State cannot rely on law to defend its own inaction or inefficiency in denying fair consideration for advancement once the prescribed eligibility criteria are met.
