1983 PLP 883 (SCMR)

by the Government. The un-controverted position which transpired from the record is that respondent herein had worked as Deputy Accountant‑General for the follow ing periods "(i) 5‑8‑1971 to 2889‑1973 (ii) 7‑2‑1974 to 8‑3‑1974 (iii) 1‑8‑1974 to 4‑10‑1974 (iv) 22‑I‑1975 to 8‑3‑1975 (v) 19‑5‑1975 to 20‑9‑1975 (vi) 11‑12‑1975 to 21‑4‑1976." From 22‑4‑1976 he was promoted to the said post on regular basis. Now the contest between the parties before the Services Tribunal was whether the respondent was entitled or not to claim the pay for the period he had worked in the higher Office as Deputy Accountant‑General. The con tention of the petitioner Government was that in view of the Auditor General Office's Notification, dated 25‑9‑1972 (ibid), the respondent was entitled to draw the pay of his own grade, namely, Assistant Accounts Officer. Whereas the respondent supported his claim on the strength of the policy decision of the then President and C. M. L. A., contained in paragraph 2 of the Ministry of the Finance letter No. F. 4(1)/70‑Exp.‑IV/114, dated February 17, 1972, as well as on the basis of a judgment of this Court in the case of The Postmaster General, Eastern Circle (E. P.) Dacca and another v. Muhammad Hasham (P L D 1978 S C,61). The learned Tribunal, after applying its mind to the rival contentions of the parties, reached the conclusion that the stand taken by the respondent was valid, consequently accepted his appeal and held that he was entitled to the pay of the Office of Deputy Accountant‑General for all the period during which he had performed duty in that Office. According to the policy decision of the then President of Pakistan and C. M. L. A. as conveyed in the letter of the Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Finance) No. F. 4(1)/70‑Exp.‑IV/114, dated February 17, 1972 (at page 31 of the paper book), an officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, namely, Majid Akhtar, was allowed to draw the pay of the post of Chief Accounts Officer for the period during which be had actually worked on that post, although his request for formal promotion to the said post was turned down. In para. 2 of the said letter, however, it was conveyed that "The President and C. M. L. A. has also been pleased to decide the same treatment may be accorded to other officers who were appointed s to higher posts without their formal promotion to those posts. In is connection, I am to advise you that, in future, no officer should be appointed against a higher post without his format promotion to that post in accordance with the normal rules and orders." Now the stand of the Government before the Services Tribunal was that in view of para. 2 of the said letter of the Government, respondent No. 1 was entitled to draw the pay of the Office of Deputy Accountant‑General only up to February 17, 1972. But for the period subsequent thereto he was disentitled. With this contention, however, the Tribunal did not agree. The view taken by the Tribunal was that in view of the exigencies of service and in the interest of an efficient and smooth administration, the Auditor‑General of Pakistan had continued the appointment of the respondent as Deputy Accountant‑General even beyond February 17, 1972 and in that respect the Auditor‑General had informed the Ministry of Finance of the petitioner Government, vide his D. O. letter dated 1st January, 1973 and another letter No. GB‑Il/27‑72, dated October 23, 1973. Having concluded thus, the learned Tribunal also attached no importance to the letter of Finance Division No. F. 2 (6) /73 ‑Exp. IV/2044, dated July 18, 1977, in which it was conveyed that all appointments made without the approval of the appointing authority would be invalid and would not carry any right to the pay of said appointments. We are of the view that in this conclusion, the learned Service Tribunal seems to be right. After all if an employee is promoted to officiate in a higher post involving higher responsibility, he must be held to be entitled to the minimum pay of the grade of the said higher office. In this respect reference may be made with advantage to a judgment of this Court in the case of The Postmaster‑General Eastern Circle (E. P.) Dacca and another v. Muhammad Hasham (ibid) in which a similar question had fallen for consider ation. In that case also the respondent, an employee in Class‑II post, was promoted by the Postmaster‑General to officiate in Class‑I post but in his appointment order it was clearly mentioned that he would continue to draw the pay of his substantive office. Notwithstanding this rider, however; this Court, after taking into consideration the effect of rules 30 and 35 of the Fundamental Rules, recorded the conclusion that so long as the services of the respondent were utilised in the higher post, he would be entitled to draw the minimum pay admissible in that post. It would thus 6e seen that the facts of the case in hand are on all fours with the facts of that case and so the ratio of the said judgment would clinch the matter in favour of the respondent. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.