1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑‑This is an appeal with the leave of this Court, against the judgment dated 12‑12‑1995 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in Appeal No.82‑K of 1995, filed by the appellant claiming move‑over to BPS‑19 with effect from 1‑12‑1984, declining the same on the ground that before filing of the above appeal the appellant failed to make departmental representation against the order of the Authority turning down his above claim. Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether in view of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal dated 13‑6‑1993 passed in appellant's Appeal No. 14‑L of 1993, was it necessary to make such representation. In support of the above appeal, the appellant is present in person. The thirst of his arguments is that in view of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal dated 13‑6‑1993 to the effect that the appellant's case for move‑over be considered without taking into consideration the adverse remarks contained in the relevant A.C.Rs. which were not conveyed to him, the Authority could not have declined the above request of move‑over. To reinforce the above submission he has referred to the Chief Administrative Officer's Letter No.E‑12(31)/93/1083, dated 4‑4‑1996, wherein in paras. 3 and 4 the following has been stated:‑‑ "

3. An analysis of the sequence of events would reveal that officer is entitled for move‑over from BPS‑18 to 19 with effect from 1‑12‑1984 in terms of Finance Division Memo. NO.F.1(82/R‑385, dated 1‑1‑1986, Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore decisions in Appeal No.14‑L of 1993 dated 17‑1‑1993 and Appeal No.259‑L, dated 27‑8‑1993. It appears that clear picture with respect to items mentioned in para. 2, sub‑paras.(i)‑(v) were not provided to move- over committee in their meetings.

4. It is, therefore, requested that:‑‑ (i) Move‑over of the officer may be reconsidered and move‑over committee may be apprised of the sequence of events detailed in para. 2. and be granted move‑over from BS‑.18 to 19 with effect from 1‑12‑1984. " (ii) President's Secretariat at Islamabad may be informed after the appellant Mr. Masaud Jamal, Deputy Director (Retd.) be granted the aforesaid move‑over. " We inquired from Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, learned Deputy Attorney‑General appearing for the respondents, the reasons on which the Authority rejected the appellant's prayer for mover‑over. His reply was that the order does not give any reasons. It seems that according to department's own view the appellant is entitled to move‑over from BPS‑18 to 19 with effect from 1‑12‑1984 for the reasons recordpd in the Chief Administrative Officer's above letter. However, we would not like to make any comments as to the validity of the above statement. In our view it will be just and proper if the matter is remanded to the Departmental Appellate Authority with the direction to consider the case of the appellant for move‑over to BPS‑19 without taking into consideration the adverse remarks contained in the relevant A.C.Rs. as was ordered by the Tribunal in its judgment dated, 13‑6‑1993 in Appeal No. 14‑L of 1993. The Departmental Appellate Authority should also take into consideration the above letter of the Chief Administrative Officer. The appellant's case be finalized within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after hearing the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./M‑235/S Order accordingly.