Muhammad Saeed Akhtar's service career took a knock when Pakistan Railways demoted him from Senior Assistant Train (BS-9) to Junior Assistant Train (BS-5). He challenged the demotion before the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.665(R)CS/2022 — and won comprehensively. On 20.05.2024 the Tribunal not only set aside the demotion but directed his proforma promotion to Train Supervisor (BS-11) with effect from 31.05.2019. Pakistan Railways came to the Supreme Court in C.P.L.A.428/2025 arguing the promotion was impossible: the mandatory T-7(a) course had not been completed, making the respondent ineligible.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi (with Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui) dated 02.10.2026, refused leave to appeal. The department's core argument collapsed on a simple reading of the rules: the T-7(a) course is a condition only for promotion to Senior Assistant Train — not for onward promotion to Train Supervisor. Having crossed the T-7(a) stage, the respondent needed no further course clearance for the BS-11 post.
The Court's interference threshold mattered as much as the merits. Under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not re-decide service disputes on facts; it intervenes only where the Tribunal commits a legal error, a procedural infirmity, or a misreading of the record. The bench found none of the three in the Tribunal's judgment. A department that disagrees with the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence cannot convert that disagreement into a constitutional question.
For government employees, the lesson is practical: eligibility conditions for promotion must be read exactly as written — a department cannot stretch a course requirement meant for one rung to block the next. And for departments: challenge a Tribunal's fact-findings only with a demonstrable legal error. Course ka bahana har promotion par nahi chalega — the rulebook says what it says, no more.