1984 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Masud Ahmad Anwari, has fled this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, n which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab, S. G. A. & I apartment through its Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that notification, dated ;2nd February, 1983 be set aside and the respondent be directed to award him N. P. S.‑20 w.e.f. 10th February, 1980. 3. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned District Attorney and have perused our earlier judgments so delivered by us in case of Awais Shahid, Sh. Muzaffar Hussain, Mir Afzal etc. as well as judgment so delivered in case of Sh. Saced Ahmad. 4. The appellant has submitted that he worked as Additional District end Sessions Judge, District and Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, Campbellpur end Faisalabad, as well as Officer on Special Duty, Lahore High Court, Lahore, Deputy Solicitory, Ministry of Law, Legal Adviser to the government of Mauritious under T. A. P. and now working as Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, with varied and good service record. The appellant has submitted that according to the seniority list of the District and Sessions Judges, he was at serial No. 10, and as such he was a senior District and Sessions Judge. According to the appellant under the Punjab Gazetted Civil Services' Pay Revision Rules, 1973, Government of the Punjab issued a notification, dated 10th April, 1975 whereby pay scales of the District and Sessions Judge was prescribed as under:‑ (1) District Senior C. S. P. (i) 1800‑80‑2200 (No. 19). and Sessions scale plus 165 Judge as special pay. (ii) 2300‑100‑2600 (No. 20) Selection grade for 15% of regular 2300‑100‑2600 strength of District and Sessions Judges. 5. It was further submitted that N. P. S.‑19 and 20 were further revised by Pay Revision Rules, 1977 w.e.f. 1st May, 1977. These scales were however revised as under :‑ N. P. S.‑19 Rs. 2250‑100‑2750 N. P. S.‑20 Rs. 2600‑125‑3225 These scales were further revised w.e.f. 1st July, 1981 as follows :‑ N. P. S.‑19 2250‑100‑3050 N. P. S.‑20 2600‑125‑3600 According to the appellant by virtue of the said notification/Rules as well as his seniority position, appellant became due for N. P. S.‑20 w.e.f. 10th February, 1980. However, the respondent has awarded N. P. S.‑20 to various District and Sessions Judges w.e.f. 10th February, 1980 but he was not considered at all by the competent authority. It was further urged that it has been conceded by the Government itself that for the purpose of award of higher N. P. S. against prescribed percentage of regular strength of cadre, it was just a move ever from lower to higher grade which does not involve assumption of higher duties or selection or promotion. The appellant while concluding his case has submitted that he had to move automatically into this grade on the strength of Pay Revision Rules and has been deprived of the same on the ground that he was not fit for promotion to N. P. S.‑20 by the Lahore High Court. 5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has vehemently contested the said proposition so laid down by the appellant and has submitted that the appellant could only be given N. P. S.‑20, if it was sanctioned by the Lahore High Court. 6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have concluded this issue in our earlier judgment, dated 12th December, 1983 titled Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Special Judge Anti‑Corrup tion, Lahore 1 v. Government of the Punjab. S. G. A & 1 Department through its Chief Secretary (Appeal No. 121/135 of 1983), which may be read as forming part of this judgment. 7. In view of the decision so taken by us in the above‑quoted judgment, which has attained finality, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant would be entitled to N. P. S.‑20 w.e.f. 10th February, 1980 when his next junior was so awarded. We are of the considered opinion that it was not justified for the respondent to deny the said pay scale as it did not involve promotion of assumption of higher duties. Even now the appellant is holding the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Grade‑20. 8. The result is we accept the appeal and direct the respondent to award N. P. S.‑20 to the appellant w.e.f. 10th February, 1980 the date on which his next junior was so awarded. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. A. E. Appeal accepted.