1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. The appeal was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant with active assistance of the appellant. The respondents were represented by Mr. Niaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate, who was assisted by Mr. A. H. Faruqi, Administrative Officer.

4. The decision of- the issue involved in the appeal rests on the provisions of `move over' contained in the Office Memo. No. F.1(1). Imp/83, dated 18-8-1983 and another Office Memorandum No. 421-R.3 (Imp.l)/85, dated 14-11-1985, copies whereof are Annexures A/5 and A/9. The appellant as well as the respondents have placed reliance on paragraph 6 of the Office Memorandum dated 18-8-1983 and para 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 14-11-1985. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-- Office Memorandum No. F.1(1). Imp183, dated 18-8-1983; "

6. The existing concession of move-over of employees from RNPS-16 to RNPS-17 (B-17) and RNPS-17 (B-17) to RN-PS-18 (B-18) shall be extended upto B-20 and regulated as under:-- (a) The existing condition of the period of stay of three years at the maximum of pay scales B-16 and B-17 in the case of non-technical and non-professional categories shall continue to be applicable. (b) No move-over beyond B-18 in the case of categories of employees mentioned at (a) above shall be permissible. (c) The move-over in the case of technical and professional categories e.g. Doctors, Engineers, Educationists, Economists, Management Accountants, Scientists, Archaeologist, Geologists, Meteorologists, Experts of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Forestry shall be permissible upto B-20 without the condition of stay at the maximum for three years. (d) Move-over shall be allowed in cases where an employees, who is otherwise considered fit for promotion to higher post, cannot be promoted for want of a vacancy. (e) Normal promotion procedure as is observed in cases of promotion through the competent authority, e.g. Establishment Division/Selection Board shall be followed in allowing move-over to Basic Scales 19 and 20." Office Memorandum No. 421-R.3(1mp.1/85, dated 14-11-1985. "

2. The posts in the Marine Fisheries Department for which prescribed qualification is M.Sc. Zoology/Marine Biology are also covered under para. 6(c) of our O.M. dated 18-8-1983. Similarly, the posts of Marine Production Officer Assistant Biologists, Quality Control Officer, Biochemist and Hydrologist carrying BPS-16 may also be considered technical for move-over under para. 6 (c) ibid." Both the parties have laid emphasis on the provisions contained in clause (c) of paragraph 6 of Office Memorandum dated 18-8-1983, which relate to the `move over' in the case of technical and professional categories specified therein. The post of Quality Control Officer was not originally included in those categories. It was included in those categories under paragraph 2 of Office Memorandum' dated 14-11-1985, reproduced above. It would appear that at the time the scheme of Basic Pay Scales and Fringe Benefits to Civil Employees of the Federal Government was introduced on 18-8-1983, the post held by the appellant was not included in the technical/professional categories. Whether the appellant was in non-technical category upto a particular stage and thereafter his post was brought under the technical categories, the question is whether he was entitled to second `move over' in either case. The concept of `move over' was introduced under the scheme of National Scales of Pay and allied matters introduced with effect from 1-3-1972. At the initial stage, its benefit extended only to the Government employees placed in national scales of pay 1 and 2 and it was extended to the holders of other national scales of pay stage by stage. It envisages a rational monetary relief to those Government employees who were/are stuck up at the maximum pay scale of the post held by them. At no stage, second move over has been specifically provided for. In order to remove doubts, the position was clarified under Office Memorandum No. F.1(82)R.3/85, dated 1-1-1986 (Annexure G to the written objections) that the employees shall not be allowed two successive move overs; with added clarification that if an employee having moved over to a particular scale is subsequently promoted to a post carrying the same scale, he may again become eligible for further move over. If more than one move overs were allowed, there could have been lot of complications in fixation of pay when the beneficiary of more than one move-overs is promoted to a post borne on the pay scale to which he had moved over first time and so on. The position of the technical and professional employees regarding move over was clarified in the guidelines on the subject issued under Office Memorandum No. F.I(63)R.3/85 (ii), dated 2-9-1985, wherein it was laid down as a criteria for move over that a technical and professional employee would be allowed only one move over from the scale of the post held by an eligible officer subject to his fulfilling certain requirements stipulated in the guidelines. Thus, the appellant did not have a case for seeking second `move over' in any case. Therefore, the appeal has no merit and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./585/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.