1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRI (MEMBER).‑‑This is an appeal preferred by Muhammad Abdul Jameel, a former employee of Pakistan Post Offices, against orders not accepting his claim for pay of B‑11 post on which he worked from 7‑12‑1976 till 7‑2‑1984. He was of coyrse, allowed pay of the said grade but with effect from 8‑2‑1984 from which date he was regularly promoted to BPS‑

11. On 3‑3‑1984 he attained the age of superannuation and so retired from the Government service.

2. The appellant was working as Wireless Inspector in the then revised NIPS‑10 when he was appointed to hold the post of Assistant Superintendent (Wireless) in NPS‑11 and continued to hold the said post till 7‑2‑1984. The appellant's case is that he was discharging duty with higher responsibility and was, therefore, entitled to pay of the higher post. The Respondent‑Department which has resisted the appeal, has taken the stand that the appellant's case was governed by the circular instructions dated 2‑7‑1977 issued by the Director‑General, Post Offices, and he was accordingly entitled to 10% officiating allowance. Having duly been paid the officiating allowance, contended the respondent's counsel, the appellant was fully compensated for having worked in the higher post. It was therefore, urged that the appellant's grievance was misconceived.

3. We have heard both the parties and' have considered the matter carefully. It is common ground that the appellant's appointment to the then NPS 11 post was on ad hoc basis. Ad, hoc appointment as defined in section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 means "appointment ‑f a duly qualified person made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment." It A follows, therefore, that the appellant was qualified to hold the post assigned to him. It is also nm in dispute that the duties he was called upon to discharge in the new post involved higher responsibilities. In that view of the matter the appellant was clearly entitled to draw pay of the higher scale (NPS‑11) as well as annual increments that he earned during the period he held the said post. We are fortified in our view by the rule of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Shahpur Jan 1986 S C M R

991. The circular instructions of the Director General, Post Offices, on which the State Counsel has placed reliance, are not applicable to the appellants case. That circular covers the cases of those employees who are not qualified to hold a higher post but even then for some administrative considerations are appointed to hold such a post. The Office Memorandum of i1‑1‑1973 which has been reproduced in the said circular reads as under:‑ "In case where anon‑gazetted P.O. employee is asked to work independently in a higher post for which he is not qualified, he will get 10% of the pay of the lower post as officiating allowance subject to the condition that the pay of the lower post plus officiating allowance does not exceed the pay that would have been admissible to him on his regular appointment against the higher post, provided the period he works on the higher post is not less than 3 months." The above provision obviously is not attracted to the appellant's case for the simple reason that it pertains to a "not qualified" employee whereas the appellant having been appointed on ad hoc basis was admittedly a qualified person. That the instructions of 2‑7‑1976 do not apply to the appellant's case becomes absolutely clear when we find the following clarification contained in para‑

2. It reads:‑ "1t is clarified that the officiating allowance is permissible only in cases where an official performs the duties of the higher post without being appointed formally on a regular or ad hoc basis."

4. The upshot of the brief discussion in the foregoing paragraphs is that the respondents erroneously applied the instructions of 2‑7‑1976 in fixing the appellant's pay in the then NPS‑

11. For the reasons given above we hold that the appellant was entitled to draw pay in BPS‑11 for the period he held the post of Assistant Superintendent (Wireless) on ad hoc basis i.e. from 7‑12‑1976 till 7‑2‑1984. We hereby direct that his pay be fixed accordingly allowing increments he earned during the said period. He will also be entitled to the arrears of pay as well as consequential benefits in determining the quantum of pension and gratuity as admissible under the rules. .

5. The appeal succeeds as above.

6. No order as to costs.

7. Parties to be informed accordingly. M.Y.H./512/Sr.F Appeal allowed.