2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 4th April, 1998. . MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑Facts of the case are that the appellant, falling under the categories of technical employees being a scientist and already working in the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad, was appointed in 1982 with advance increments considering his qualification and other factors, and thus, thereby reached the maximum of B‑18, but somehow or other an objection was raised that he could not be given the benefits of increments having not completed the requisite tenure of seven years in B‑17 and after availing the requisite right of representation and departmental appeal came to this Tribunal for rederessal of his grievance.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the departmental representative of the P.A.R.C. Besides the Government Rules and Orders there is a special law contained in the P.A.R.C., Ordinance, 1981, section 26 of which authorises the Board of Governors P.A.R.C. to frame Rules for all matters for the "Employees (Service Regulations, 1984)" herein referred as Regulations and according to the definition clause (4) Competent Authority means Board Executive Committee or Chairman, Officer of the Council to whom the power is delegated under section 9(5) of the Ordinance. Under subsection (4) of Regulation 8:‑‑-- Provided that where a person possesses additional experience or special qualifications or where a person of the prescribed qualifications or experience for the post is not available the appointing authority may allow a higher initial pay in the time scale of that post on the recommendation of the Selection Committee concerned; Provided further that not more than six increments may be granted in any case." Keeping in view the academic qualification and research work rendered by the appellant, as is evident from his bio data at page‑19, experience at page 20 and publications at pages 21 to 25 annexed to the appeal, the P` competent Authority was pleased to grant him advance increments considering him most suitable and in accordance with Regulation 10(3) relating to increments is reproduced below:‑‑

"Special increments within the scale‑may be granted by the Board up to BPS‑19 on the recommendation of the Chairman duly processed and endorsed by the assessment committee appointed for the purpose. "

3. The main hurdle in way of the appellant is Government reluctance that he could not be given the higher scale having not fulfilled the requisite tenure but in this respect we feel that it has either overlooked or misinterpreted provisions of para. 6(c) of the order, dated 18‑8‑1983, contained in No. F.1(1)‑Imp/83 Government of Pakistan, Finance Division, regarding "(Scheme of Basic Pay Scale)" reproduced below:‑‑ "The moveover in the case of technical and professional categories e.g. Doctors, Engineers, Educationists, Economists, Management Accountants, Scientists, Arehaeologists, Geologists, Meteorlogists Experts of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Forestry shall be permissible upto B‑20 without the condition of stay at the maximum for three years." A careful perusal of para. 6(c) above giving special permission and concession to the professionals and technical incumbents including scientists cannot be treated at par with their counterparts in identical pay scales. It still holds the field having not been withdrawn and the council relied on para.6(c) a sort of encouragement to the really talented and highly educated civil servants in various departments and it is on account of this encouragement that Pakistan is not lagging behind in technology and other scientific research fields inclusive of the latest test of "Ghauri Missile". These categories of. persons need more encouragement for the overall development of the "Sacred Land".

4. The respondents appear to have not denied the qualifications of the appellant as is evident from their parawise comments on "Factual side." In other words the appellant is a scientist of high calibre and was rightly allowed the advance increments by the "competent Authority". The respondents despite strenuous efforts made by the appellant in redressal of his grievance, were not able to grant the requisite remedy by application of the usual delaying tactics in one way or the other.

5. It is to observe that the appellant had filed a writ petition prior to filing of the present appeal in this Tribunal in the Honourble High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel for respondents stated that final reply by the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, received pursuant to the reference, dated 7‑12‑1995 by the P.A.R.C., would be communicated to the petitioner/appellant within a period of three weeks from today so as to enable the petitioner to move the Federal Service Tribunal but actually it was delivered on 23‑9‑1997 after delay of about 20 days and thereafter the present appeal was filed. All authorities under the law are legally bound to Supply copies of the requisite orders etc. as early as possible for curbing delay in disposal of judicia3 matters on the one hand and cultivating spirit of solidarity amongst citizens of the State for further minimizing the chances of unwarranted demonstration of conduct detrimental to peace and good order.

6. Pursuant to what has been stated above, we are constrained to accept the appeal and allow the prayer at serial No. 3 with respect to grant of moreover w.e.f. 1‑12‑1986 instead of 1‑12‑1989 with further direction that respondents may also consider his eligibility prayed for at paras. 4 and 5 or the appeal at page 9 and if found suitable under the rules be favoured accordingly. The appellant is also allowed costs.

7. Parties be informed accordingly H.B.T./25/Sr.F Appeal accepted