SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.931 OF 2020 
[Against the judgment dated 8.9.2015, passed by the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar, in Appeal No.1681 
of 2011] 
 
 
Wali Jan. 
…Appellant 
Versus 
Government 
of 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa 
through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock 
Cooperative Department, Peshawar and 
others. 
 
 
 
…Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant 
: Mr. Amjad Ali (Mardan), ASC 
(via video link from Peshawar) 
Haji Muhammad Zahir,  
AOR (absent) 
 
  
Respondents 
: Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, 
Addl. A.G., KPK 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 01.02.2021 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.- The service appeal filed by the 
appellant in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar 
(the Tribunal) was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 
08.09.2015. The operative part of which is as follows:  
“7. 
From 
perusal 
of 
the 
record 
it 
transpired that at the time of consideration 
for promotion anti-corruption proceedings 
for two different cases No.191 of 2001 and 
29 of 2002 were pending adjudication in the 
Court of Special Judge Anti-corruption 
CA.931 of 2020 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
which were decided on 14.10.2003 and 
26.02.2004 respectively and appellant was 
acquitted on the benefit of doubt. The 
deferment of the appellant on the relevant 
time was thus in accordance with the 
provision as contained in the promotion 
policy of the Provincial Government. Moreso, 
the appellant failed to agitate his deferment 
in 
time 
but 
took 
up 
the 
matter 
on 
12.05.2011 after abnormal delay of almost 9 
years. It is also ironical to observe that 
assessment of suitability and fitness for the 
higher post is a pre-requisite for promotion, 
it 
entails 
assumption 
of 
higher 
responsibilities and actualization of charge 
in the higher post which is not possible 
under the existing law/rules on promotion. 
The prayer of the appellant for promotion to 
the higher post after a long time of his 
retirement carries no weight and cannot be 
entertained. The cases cited by the appellant 
were 
also 
not 
identical, 
hence 
no 
discrimination 
against 
him. 
For 
these 
reasons the appeal being devoid of any 
merits is dismissed. …” 
 
2. 
 
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
the last acquittal of the appellant took place on 15.04.2011, which 
the Tribunal did not take into consideration.  
3. 
 
We have asked the learned counsel for the appellant to 
show from the Memo of Appeal filed before the Tribunal about the 
appellant’s acquittal on 15.04.2011, the learned counsel was 
unable to show that any such acquittal was relied upon by the 
appellant in the service appeal filed before the Tribunal.  
CA.931 of 2020 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
4. 
 
We have also asked the learned counsel to show from 
the very departmental appeal as to whether the acquittal on 
15.04.2011 was mentioned in it. No such mention was found even 
in the departmental appeal filed by the appellant.  
5. 
 
It is settled law that a party has no right to raise an 
absolutely new plea before this Court and seek a decision on it, nor 
could such plea be allowed to be raised as a matter of course or right on 
the pretext of doing complete justice. Besides, this Court in its appellate 
jurisdiction will not generally determine a question of fact that has not 
been pleaded or raised by the party in the lower forum. Reliance in this 
regard may be made to the case of Sarhad development Authority 
N.W.F.P. (Now KPK) v. Nawab Ali Khan (2020 SCMR 265). 
6. 
 
The Tribunal has already dealt with the matter and no 
illegality has been pointed out in the impugned judgment. The 
same is, therefore, maintained. The appeal is dismissed.    
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Bench-I 
Islamabad 
01.02.2021 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Mahtab/* 
JUDGE 
 
