1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑M/s. Ghulam Muhammad and 18 others as mentioned above Superintendents of the various attached Departments in the Punjab have made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein they have impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore and the Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal the appellants have prayed that the appellants be declared to be entitled to NPS‑16 w.e.f. 1‑5‑1977 or alternatively respondents be directed to allow NPS‑16 to them w.e.f. the said date. It has also been prayed that the impugned order dated 22‑1‑1985/17‑2‑1985 be set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the present appellants arc the Superintendents working in the offices of various attached Departments/non- Secretariat Offices and they have been given BS‑15 in the year 1983 which is lesser than BS‑16 being enjoyed by Secretariat Superintendents. The Government introduced Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977, according to which the Secretariat Superintendents were sanctioned NPS‑16 while the non‑Secretariat Superintendents were allowed NPS‑11. The appellants, however, were also allowed BS‑15 in the year 1983. The grievance of the appellants is that they are also entitled to NPS‑16 w.e.f 1‑5‑1977, the date from which the Secretariat Superintendents were awarded NPS‑16, keeping in view their workload. The appellants agitated the matter before the Departmental Authorities for allowing them BS‑16 instead of BS‑15 as allowed to the Secretariat Superintendents. Their appeals were rejected vide impugned orders dated 22‑1‑1985/17‑2‑1985. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was an anomaly in allowing NPS‑11 to the appellants in the year 1977, when the Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977, were introduced. Through these very rules, their counterpart Superintendents working in the Civil Secretariat were allowed NPS‑16. When this discrepancy was brought to the notice of the Departmental Authorities, the appellants were allowed B‑15 in the year 1983 which is still lower than B‑16 allowed to the Secretariat Superintendents. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the duties so entrusted to the appellants arc nowhere less than the Secretariat Superintendents. He referred to para.4 of the appeal were in a comparison of the duties of the appellants and the Superintendent Secretariat has been made. He submitted that a perusal of this para reveals that the duties assigned to the appellants are much higher than the Secretarial Superintendents. Thus, it is not fair to allow NPS‑16 to the Secretariat Superintendents and refuse the same grade to the appellants. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Anomalies Committee during the month of September, 1983 had recommended that the appellants' case was a fit case for allowing them B‑16 but the Finance Department, Punjab has not acceded to the recommendation of the Anomalies Committee. The learned counsel for the appellants has made known that other Provincial Governments have upgraded the post of Non‑Secretariat Superintendents to B‑16 but in the case of the appellants, the Punjab Government is adamant not to accede to the request of the appellants. 6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and has relied on the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents. He has submitted that no discrimination of pay scale of the Superintendents of Secretariat/Non‑Secretariat has been shown. The superintendents in Secretariat, non‑Secretariat Offices are having different pay scales since inception of Pakistan. The details are as under:‑ Year Secretariat Supdt Non‑Secretariat Sundt Rs. Rs. 1957. 350‑20‑450/25‑600 250‑15‑400 1962. 525‑40‑845 325‑20‑525 1972. 400‑35‑750/50‑1000 275‑20‑375/20‑475/25‑fi00 (No. 16) (No. 11) 1977. 625‑40‑825/50‑1325 430‑24‑550/28‑830 (No. 16) (No.11) 1983. 1050‑80‑2250 900‑24‑550/28‑830 (B‑16) (No.15) Referring to the above data the learned District Attorney has submitted that the Secretariat Superintendents were granted NPS‑16 in the year 1972 while the appellants were granted NPS‑11. There has been no change in the grade of the Secretariat Superintendents since then but the appellants were allowed B‑15 in the year 1983. The appellants have reasonably good pay scale keeping in view the duties performed by them and no injustice has been done with them. A Superintendent in Secretariat on having been promoted as such becomes drawing and disbursing officer for their personal salary etc. However, this is not the condition prevailing in the non‑Secretariat Superintendents. Despite having promotion from the lower rank, the Superintendent in Secretariat Department having worked on more sensitive and responsible level is practically different from the Superintendent of Non‑Secretariat Offices. It was also pointed out by the learned District Attorney that the Finance Department always take a fair and honest view of the matters referred to it. In the considered opinion of the Finance Department, he duties and responsibilities of the Secretariat Superintendents are fairly heavier and greater as compared to the Superintendents of attached Departments. They mainly deal with establishment and accounts matters, whereas this is not the position of Superintendents in attached Departments. In the attached Departments, the Superintendent performs routine and ordinary duties. Therefore, in the matter of workload and quality of workload, the work of the Superintendents in non‑Secretariat Offices holds no comparison with the work of the Secretariat Superintendents. Thus, the work of the Secretariat Superintendent is qualitatively superior and greater in volume. He performs more sensitive and important duties falling in the sphere of establishment, administration, accounts, development, service rules etc. It was made known by the learned District Attorney that other Provincial Governments have upgraded the posts of Superintendent keeping in view their responsibilities, duties and resources. The Punjab Government have also examined this issue many a time but it was not agreed to even at the level of Finance Minister due to responsibilities, duties and financial constraints. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney as the duties and responsibilities of the post of Superintendent Secretariat and non‑Secretarial Superintendent are different, therefore, the separate pay scales have been prescribed for each category. Hence, there is no disparity and discrimination in the matter of those pay scales. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record of this case very carefully. We have observed that the Superintendents in Secretariat and non‑Secretariat Offices are having different pay scales since inception of Pakistan which are as follows:‑ Year. Secretariat Supdt. Non‑Secretariat Supdt. Rs. Rs. 1957. 350‑20‑450/25‑6(X) 250‑15‑400 1962. 525‑40‑8‑45 325‑20‑525 1972. 400‑35‑750/50‑1000 275‑20‑375/20‑475/25‑600 (No.16) (No.11). 1977. 625‑40‑825/50‑1325 430‑24‑550/28‑830 (No.16) (No.11) 1983. 1050‑80‑2250 900‑55‑2000 (B‑16) (No.15) The perusal of the duties so assigned to the Secretariat and non‑Secretariat Superintendents also reveals that the work of Secretariat Superintendent is qualitatively superior and greater in volume than the non‑Secretariat Superintendent. We have also consulted the record of the Punjab Finance Department and find that the matter regarding the anomaly so pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant was examined in the meeting of the Finance Secretaries held on 6‑3‑1984, to consider the anomalies arising out of introduction of scheme of pay scales, wherein the Finance Secretaries, Govt. of the Punjab, Sind, N.‑W.F. P. and Baluchistan were present. The minutes of this meeting at page 10, under category No.3, mention that the following cases considered by the meeting neither constituted anomalies nor were fit for upgradation. The post of Superintendent (Non‑Secretariat Offices) of the Punjab Province is listed under above category. Thus, the Committee of the Finance Secretaries considered that the appellants post neither constituted anomaly nor was fit for upgradation. The above fact rejects, the pica of the learned counsel for the appellant that Anomalies Committee had recommended the appellants' case for upgradation of their post but was not favourably considered by the Punjab Finance Department. We are also now persuaded by the appellants' counsel's arguments that as the other Provinces have allowed the non‑Secretariat Superintendents B‑16, hence the appellants be allowed the same, because we have consulted the record of the Punjab Finance Department which reveals that their case was also considered at the level of the Finance Minister and was not considered fit for upgradation. The note portion from the relevant file of the Punjab Government, Finance Department is reproduced below:‑ "28. The minutes recorded at the PUC by the Minister for Finance are as under:‑ 'Please look into it and decide as quickly as possible.' 29. Mr. Ghulam Muhammad, Superintendent, Directorate of Livestock Farms, Punjab, has requested the posts of Superintendents in non- Secretariat Offices may be upgraded from Scale B‑15 to Scale 16. The proposal of upgradation of the posts of Supdt. from B‑15 to B‑16 was considered in a Finance Secretaries meeting held on 6‑3‑1984 as a general proposal. It was considered then that neither it constitutes any anomaly, nor was considered fit for upgradation. 30. The issue of upgradation of the post of Superintendent from B‑15 to B 16 was also considered as a general issue. It was not agreed for upgradation by the F.M.(LF No.F1D‑PC‑29‑10/77‑Pt.I(Para 400‑401/N). 31. It is, therefore, proposed that the status quo may remain in respect of pay scale of the post of Superintendent. The PUC may be filed. Sd/- U.S. (PC) 5/2 D.S. (PC) SD.S.(PC) 5 Feb. A.F.S (B) Sd/‑ A.F.S. 7‑2‑1985. F.S. Sd/- F.S. F.M. Sd/ - F.M. 18‑2‑1985. 8. Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, we rind that no injustice has been done with the appellants and the appeal is dismissed as such. There is no order as to costs. A.A./252/Sr.P Appeal dismissed.