IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
 
Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
 
Civil petition No.1424 of 2016 
Against the Judgment dated 08.2.2016 passed 
by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in 
Appeal No. 194(R)CS/2013. 
 
Federal Public Service Commission thr. Its Secy. 
 
Petitioner(s) 
 
VERSUS 
 
Anwar-ul-Haq (Private Secretary) Islamabad & others 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Mr. Abdul Rashid Awan, DAG 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Director, FPSC 
  
For Respondent No.1: 
 
Mr. Ghulam Fareed, ASC  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
 
30.9.2016 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
 Mushir Alam, J-. Petitioner, Federal Public Service 
Commission (FPSC), has challenged the decision dated 8.2.2016 
passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) Islamabad, whereby 
setting aside the order dated 8.01.2013, passed by the competent 
authority, declining representation of the respondent seeking grant 
of BPS-19. The petitioner was directed to grant BPS-19 and re-
designate respondent No.1 as Senior Private Secretary from the 
date he completed 12 years of service in BPS-17. 
 
2. 
 
Facts in brief appear to be that the respondent No.1 was 
originally appointed on 2.12.1978 in Finance Division, as LDC, he 
was then promoted as Stenotypist on 19.02.1980. He was then 
appointed in the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib as Stenographer in (BPS-
15) on 19.02.1980, in which post he was confirmed on 08.12.1985. 
Later he was appointed in FPSC, in selection grade BPS-16 on 
21.5.1998 with effect from 6.2.1997. However, his substantive post 
remained as that of Stenographer (BPS-15.). He earned promotion 
as Private Secretary (BPS-17) on 12.8.2011.  
Civil petition No.1424 of 2016 
 
2 
Pursuant to Office Memorandum (OM) dated 23.12.2011 (@ page 35) 
with the concurrence of competent authority post of Private 
Secretary was upgraded, to BPS 18.  
 
3. 
 
On 05.6.2012 respondent No.1, made a request (@ page 
26) for the grant of BPS-19 on the ground inter-alia that pursuant to 
OM dated 2nd June, 1983 his total length of service comes to 12 
years, 03 months and 26 days, thus entitled him for the grant of 
BPS-19, which request was declined vide order dated January 8th 
2013 on the ground that he does “not hold the required length of 12 
years service in BS-17 and above as per clarification from 
Establishment Division vide their U.O No.4/1/98-R-6 (Pt-II) dated 
30.11.2012,” 
which 
order 
of 
the 
competent 
authority 
was 
successfully challenged before the FST, and vide its impugned 
decision dated 08.2.2016 the petitioner was directed to grant BPS-
19 to the respondent and re-designate him as Private Secretary 
from the date of his completing 12 years of service in BPS-17 on the 
strength of formula laiddown in Establishment Division O.M dated  
02.6.1983, with back benefit.   
 
4. 
 
Mr. Abdul Rasheed Awan learned DAG, with vehemence 
urged that the respondent did not possess 12 years qualifying 
length of service in substantive post of BPS-17 and above. According 
to learned DAG, respondent was holding substantive post of 
Stenographer in BPS-15, when he was appointed in Federal Public 
Service Commission (in BPS-16 selection grade) he was promoted to 
BPS-17 on 12.8.2011, pursuant to OM dated 23.12.2011 his post 
was upgraded to BPS-18 (@ page 35), it was urged that upgradation 
of post of Private Secretary from BPS-17 to 18 is not a promotion in 
terms of Section 9 (1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. It was urged 
that the learned FST misdirected itself while treating respondent on 
substantive post, which is factually not correct. It was urged that 
OM dated 2nd June, 1983; was not correctly appreciated in proper 
perspective resulting into flawed judgment, which cannot be 
sustained and is liable to be set aside. He prayed accordingly. 
 
5. 
 
Mr. Ghulam Fareed, learned ASC for the respondent 
No.1 supports the impugned decision of the FST. He has placed 
heavy reliance upon Finance Division O.M dated 23.12.2011 to claim 
upgradation to BPS-19 on the strength of his length of service in 
Civil petition No.1424 of 2016 
 
3 
lower grade, in accordance with O.M dated 02.06.1983, referred to 
in first mention O.M. He emphasized his service in lower grade is to 
be computed in accordance with formula given by the Establishment 
Division as per O.M. dated 02.06.1983. For the purpose of 
computing length of service in different grade to earn eligibility for 
BPS-19 he has placed heavy reliance on part (iii) to the O.M dated 
2nd June, 1983, to urge that the impugned decision of FST is based 
on correct appreciation of facts and law does not call for 
interference. 
 
6. 
 
Exercising right of rebuttal learned DAG has drawn our 
attention to proviso (ii) and (iii) of O.M dated 2nd June, 1983 to urge 
that upgradation to BPS-19 or otherwise cannot be claimed as a 
matter of right. It was urged that the minimum length of service in 
a particular substantive grade is considered for consideration of 
promotion in next higher substantive grade and not for the purposes 
of merely upgradation of the post. It was stated that the post of the 
respondent was being upgraded from time to time. He cannot claim 
upgradation as a matter of right. 
   
7. 
 
We have heard the arguments and perused the record. 
In order to appreciate the contentions of both the learned counsels 
it would be beneficial to glance through Office Memorandum dated 
23.12.2011 and 02.06.1983 respectively, relied upon by both the 
learned counsels in support of their respective contentions subject 
O.M dated 23.12.2011 reads as follow:- 
 
“Government of Pakistan 
Finance Division 
(Regulation Wing) 
 
 
OFFICE MEMORANDUM 
 
F.No.19(55)Legal-II/2010-1055 
Islamabad, the 23rd December, 2011 
 
   Subject:- UPGRADATION OF THE POSTS OF STENOTYPIST,         
      STENOGRAPHER AND PRIVATE SECRETARY 
 
 
The undersigned is directed to say that consequent  upon 
approval of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the posts of Private 
Secretaries, Stenographers and Stenotypist have been upgraded with 
immediate effect subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned 
against each:- 
Civil petition No.1424 of 2016 
 
4 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The incumbents of the upgraded posts will also stand upgraded and their pay will 
be fixed at the stage next above their basic pay in their lower pay scales. 
 
2. 
The Establishment Division will amend the recruitment rules of the above 
said posts, accordingly. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sd/xxx 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Muhammad Azam Awan) 
All Ministries/Divisions/Departments 
 
    Section Officer (R-I)” 
 
8. 
 
It is admitted position that the respondent No.1 was 
serving in BPS-16 in Selection Grade (his substantive grade remained BS-
15) before he was promoted to BPS-17 on 12.8.2012. Post of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17) was upgraded to BPS-18 subject to five years 
qualifying length of service instead of seven years.  In terms of O.M 
dated 23.12.2011 which inter-alia provided that all the Private 
Secretaries “will continue to remain in BS-17 and will be granted BS-18 
after putting in 5 years satisfactory service instead of 7 years”. However 
one time exception was created in subject O.M as reproduced above, 
which provided that “existing Private Secretaries in BS-17 will be 
granted BS-18 on one time basis, irrespective of their length of 
service in BS-17”. 
 
 
9. 
 
Upgradation 
is 
not 
a 
promotion, 
as 
generally 
misunderstood. Upgradation is carried out without necessarily to 
create posts in the relevant scales of pay it is carried out under a 
policy and specified scheme as done in the instant case through 
subject O.M dated 23.12.2011. It is resorted only for the 
incumbents of isolated posts, which have no avenues or channel of 
promotion at all. Upgradation under the scheme is personal to the 
incumbents of the isolated posts, to address stagnation and 
frustration of incumbent on a particular post for sufficient length of 
service on particular post without any progression or avenue of 
Sr. 
# 
Name 
of 
the 
Post 
Existing 
BS 
Upgraded 
BS 
Conditions 
1 
Private 
Secretary 
17 
 
- 
Will continue to remain in BS-17 and will be granted 
BS-18 after putting in 5 years satisfactory service 
instead of 7 years. The Private Secretaries in BS-18 
will further be granted BS-19 after putting in 12 
years service in BS-17 and above taking benefit of 
Establishment Division’s O.M. No.1/9/80-R-II, dated 
2.6.1983. However, on grant of BS-19 nomenclature 
of the post will be Senior Private Secretary 
 
The existing Private Secretaries in BS-17 will be 
granted BS-18 on one time basis irrespective of 
their length of service in BS-17. 
 
2 
Stenographer 
15 
16 
With 
enhancement 
of 
qualification 
for 
initial 
appointment from Intermediate to Graduation.  
3. 
Stenotypist 
12 
14 
With 
enhancement 
of 
qualification 
for 
initial 
appointment from Matriculation to Intermediate 
Civil petition No.1424 of 2016 
 
5 
promotion. Post of Stenographers/Private Secretaries is one of such 
kind of post, which has no avenues or channel of promotion to 
higher grades as may be available to other incumbents in civil 
service. Upgradation is carried out under a scheme and or a policy 
to incentivize and to encourage and to give financial benefits without 
creating additional vacancies of higher grade, upgradation by no 
standards could be treated and or considered as promotion to higher 
grade. Incumbent occupying ungraded post retain their substantive 
grade. 
 
10. 
 
Now examining the case of the respondent No.1 he was 
serving as Private Secretary in substantive grade BPS-17 when, O.M 
dated 23rd December, 2011 was issued, which inter-alia provided 
that all those serving in BPS-17 having put in 5 years would be 
entitled to be upgraded to BPS-18 on satisfactory service in BPS-17 
for a period of 5 years instead of 7 ½ years as earlier required per 
O.M dated 2.6.1983. However, in view of one time exception, all the 
Private Secretaries including the respondent No.1 working in BPS-17 
on the date of issuance of O.M dated 23rd December, 2011 was 
upgraded to PBS-18, irrespective of length of service in BPS-17, 
respondent No.1 falling in such exception was accordingly promoted 
with merely little over 4 months  service in BPS 17, as noted above, 
it is merely a financial benefit attached to upgradation, as and when 
such upgraded incumbent leaves or transfers or vacancy occurs for 
any reasons than the vacancy is of substantive post and not that of 
upgraded post and is accordingly filled up either by transfer, 
promotion or direct appointment as the case may be. 
 
11. 
 
Claim of the respondent that he has put in 12 years of 
service in BPS-17 as per formula made applicable in terms of O.M 
dated 2.6.1983. To appreciate such contention it would be beneficial 
to examine such said Office Memorandum which reads as follows:- 
 
“GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 
CABINET SECRETARIAT 
ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION 
No.1/9/80-R.2  
 
Rawalpindi, the 2nd June 1983 
 
OFFICE MEMORANDUM 
 
Subject: MINIMUM LENGTH OF SERVICE FOR ELIGIBILITY INPROMOTION    
 
OF OFFICERS  
 
Civil petition No.1424 of 2016 
 
6 
  
In pursuance of rule 8-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, 
Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 and in supersession of the 
instructions laid down in the Establishment Division’s Office Memorandum 
No.1/9/80-R.II (A), dated the 12th January, 1981, the President is 
pleased to decide that the minimum length of service for promotion 
to various grades shall be as follows:- 
 
 
  
For Grade-18 
 
5 years in grade 17 
  
For Grade-19 
 
12 years in grade 17 and above 
  
For Grade-20 
 
17 years in grade 17 and above 
  
For Grade-21 
 
22 years in grade 17 and above 
 
Proved that:- 
 
i) 
Where initial appointment of a person not being a person in 
government  service takes placed in a post in grade 18, 19 or 20, 
the length of service specified in this office memorandum shall be 
reduced by the  following periods: 
 
  
 
First appointment in  
 
 
Reduced by 
  
 
Grade-18 
 
 
 
5 years 
  
 
Grade-19 
 
 
 
12 years 
  
 
Grade-20 
 
 
 
17 years 
ii) 
Where initial appointment of a person already in government 
service takes place, on recommendations of the Federal Public 
Service Commission in a post in grade 18, 19 or 20 the length of 
service specified in this office memorandum shall be  reduced  by 
the periods specified in proviso (i), 
 
iii) 
Where first appointment of a person other than a person covered 
by proviso (ii) was made to government service in grade 16 or 
below, one-half of the service in grade 16 and one fourth in 
grade 15 and below may be counted as service in grade 17 for 
computing length of service for the purpose of promotion  only. 
 
  
 
 
 
Sd/xxx 
 
  
 
 
 
 
(Mashkoor Ahmad Khan) 
  
 
 
 
 
      Joint Secretary 
  
 
 
 
 
To the Government of 
All Ministries/Divisions  
 
         Pakistan”  
 
 
12. 
 
From bare perusal of above criteria, it could be seen that 
same is applicable “for the purposes of promotion only”. Admittedly, 
case of the respondent No.1 is of upgradation and not that of 
promotion. As noted above upgradation is often misconstrued as 
promotion, what respondent No.1 requested through his application 
is promotion to grade BPS-19, for which a selection process, in 
terms of Section 9(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, read with Civil 
Servant (Appointment, promotion and Transfer Rules), 1973 is to be 
followed, which cannot be bypassed under any circumstance. Civil 
servants are appointed and or promoted to the post and not to the 
grades. This Court in the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others 
versus Province of Sindh and others (2015 SCMR 456) in paragraph 
138 @ page 514, has dealt with implication and purport of 
upgradation, as retreated in the case of Regional Commissioner 
Income Tax, Northern Region, Islamabad and another versus Syed 
Munawar Ali and others (2016 SCMR 859), held in para No.7 @ page 
Civil petition No.1424 of 2016 
 
7 
862 it was further held that “issue relating to upgradation of civil 
servants can be decided by a High Court in exercise of its 
constitutional jurisdiction and bar contained under Article 212(3) of 
the Constitution would not be attracted. The policy of upgradation, 
notified by the Government, in no way, amends the terms and 
conditions of service of civil the servant or the Civil Servants Act and 
or the rules framed there under. The Service Tribunals have no 
jurisdiction to entertain any appeal involving the issue of 
upgradation, as it does not form part of the terms and conditions of 
service of the civil servants.”  
 
13. 
 
In order to appreciate contentions of respondent his 
tenure of his service in grade below PBS-16 given in paragraph 6 of 
his appeal before FST; is reproduced as follows:- 
 
“That the appellant fulfills/meet the requisite length of service as 
enunciated in O.M dated 23.12.2011. The detail of the same is reproduced 
below for kind perusal of this Learned Tribunal:- 
  
Sr.No. 
Post 
Period 
Length 
of 
service 
To be counted in the 
light of OM  23.12.11 
& 02.06.83 
1. 
LDC 
2.12.1978 
to 
18.2.1980 
1 
year, 
2 
months, 
16 
days 
3 months, 19 days 
2. 
Stenotypist 
19.2.1980 
to 
07.12.1985 
5 
years, 
9 
months, 
19 
days 
1 year, 05 months, 
07 days 
3. 
Stenographer 
(BPS-15) 
08.12.1985 to 
05.2.1997 
11 
years, 
1 
month, 25 days 
2 years, 9 months, 
06 days 
4. 
Stenographer 
Selection 
Grade 
(BPS-16) 
06.2.1997 
to 
11.8.2011 
14 
years, 
6 
months, 5 days 
7 years, 3 months, 2 
days 
5. 
Private 
Secretary 
(BPS-17) 
12.8.2011 
to 
22.12.2011 
4 months, 10 
days 
04 month, 10 days 
6. 
Private 
Secretary 
(BPS-18) 
23.12.2011 to 
31.01.2013 
1 
year, 
01 
month, 8 days 
1 year, 1 month, 8 
days 
7. 
Total 
 
 
13 years, 02 months 
02 days” 
 
14. 
 
Even if request of the respondent No.1 is considered for 
upgradation to BPS-19, then also he has no case. Respondent No.1 
was promoted in BPS-17 on 12.8.2011, merely after 4 months and 
10 days pursuant to O.M dated 23.12.2011, his post of Private 
Secretary was upgraded to BPS-18. To claim benefit to O.M dated 
2.6.1983, as reproduced above he counted 1/2 of his earlier 14 
years service in BPS-16 (Selection Grade) from 6.2.1997 to 11.8.2011 
as 7 years. From the calculation made by the respondent No.1, it is 
manifest that he made error in counting his service in BPS-16 
(Selection Grade) as that of BPS-16 in substantive grade. As noted in 
the narrative above; he was serving in his substantive grade BPS-15 
Civil petition No.1424 of 2016 
 
8 
when his was appointed in Federal Public Service Commission in 
BPS-16 (selection grade), merely serving in BPS-16 in selection 
grade, could not be counted as service in substantive grade BPS-16 
but in BPS-15, therefore, such tenure of service could not be 
calculated ½ of 14 years but in fact ¼ of total service being below 
substantive grade BPS-16,(i.e. from 2.12.1978 to 11.8.2011 which 
comes to approximately 22 years calculating 1/4th of said period it comes 
to 5.5 years adding  4 months 10 day in  BS-17 and 1 year 01 month and 
8 days in BS-18 comes 6 years 6 months approximately in terms of 
formula (per proviso (iii) to O.M  dated 2.6.1983) even if rounded up to 
8 years that it does not meet the criteria of 12 years of length of 
service in BPS-17 and above required to be upgraded to BPS-19. In 
view of the discussion made above, impugned decision of the FST, 
cannot be sustained both on merits as well as for lack of jurisdiction, 
which is accordingly, set aside, instant leave petition is converted 
into appeal and is allowed accordingly.  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
ISLAMABAD, THE  
30th September, 2016 
arshed 
 
Approved for Reporting 
