The Honourable Ms. Justice Ayesha A. Malik has held that delays caused by the employer cannot be used as an excuse to deny or delay an employee’s promotion. In a recent judgment, Fakhar Majeed v. Government of Punjab, she emphasized that administrative inefficiency on the part of the government does not justify withholding an employee’s lawful consideration for promotion. She further observed that the government is expected to act as a model employer and must adopt fair, transparent, and timely employment practices in dealing with its servants. This decision reinforces the principle that public authorities are accountable for their own delays and must ensure that employees are not made to suffer because of institutional inaction.
In Fakhar Majeed v. Government of Punjab, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed an important issue in service law concerning delays in promotion caused by administrative inaction. The case went beyond the personal grievance of a single civil servant and highlighted broader constitutional principles of fairness, equality, and accountability in public employment. The Court emphasized that government authorities must act responsibly and that procedural delays can amount to violations of constitutional rights.
The petitioner was a government employee who was repeatedly assigned current charge of a higher post for a long period, despite being eligible for promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committee was not convened on time, and the government failed to provide any reasonable explanation for this delay. The petitioner challenged this conduct, arguing that such prolonged inaction was arbitrary and violated his constitutional rights under Articles 4 and 25, which guarantee lawful treatment and equality before the law.
The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether keeping an employee on current charge for an extended period without timely consideration for promotion was arbitrary, whether Section 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 permitted such delay, and whether a civil servant has a constitutional right to be considered for promotion within a reasonable time. The Court held that although the law allows temporary arrangements, these cannot be used in a manner that undermines constitutional protections.
The Court clarified an important legal distinction by holding that while no civil servant has a vested right to promotion, every eligible civil servant has a constitutional right to timely consideration for promotion. When the government fails to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee without justification, such inaction amounts to arbitrariness and violates the principles of fairness and equality. The Court rejected the argument that administrative inefficiency could justify prolonged current charge arrangements, stating that the State cannot benefit from its own failure.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court’s reasoning aligned with international and comparative legal principles. Similar approaches exist in Indian jurisprudence, where courts have ruled that ad hoc or temporary arrangements cannot be used to deny fair promotion opportunities. The reasoning also reflects principles from UK administrative law, particularly the protection of legitimate expectations created by consistent administrative practices. The Court further referred to international governance standards, including OECD principles and the United Nations’ emphasis on effective and accountable institutions, to reinforce the importance of transparency and efficiency in public administration.
Although the judgment strongly promotes fairness, it does leave some uncertainty because it does not define a specific time limit for how long current charge arrangements may continue. This could result in increased litigation in future cases. However, the Court limited the impact of this concern by relying on the exceptional facts of the case, particularly the prolonged delay and the complete absence of justification by the department.
As a remedy, the Court ordered a deemed promotion from the date the Departmental Promotion Committee should first have been convened rather than from the date of vacancy. This approach corrected the injustice suffered by the petitioner while avoiding the legal complications associated with retrospective promotions. The remedy struck a balance between enforcing constitutional fairness and respecting statutory limits.
Overall, Fakhar Majeed v. Government of Punjab represents a significant development in Pakistan’s service jurisprudence. It establishes that timely consideration for promotion is a constitutional right, reinforces the principle that the State must act as a model employer, and integrates domestic service law with broader ideas of good governance and rule of law. The judgment makes it clear that administrative efficiency is not merely a managerial concern but a constitutional obligation, and it strengthens a rights-based approach to public service administration in Pakistan.
