1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The controversy between the parties was only on the point whether the induction of the appellant in BS‑19 was in the nature of promotion or it was merely up-gradation of the post. In support of their respective points of view, the learned counsel for the parties gave their own arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prior to the appellant's appointment in BS‑19, his case was formally considered by Provincial Selection Board No. II and it was on the recommendations of the said Board that the appellant was promoted to the higher post of BS‑

19. He further submitted that as the posts of Joint Directors were placed in two different scales of pay (i.e. two posts in BS‑19 and remaining four posts in BS‑18 with special pay of Rs.275), the posts of Section Officers too are divided in two distinct categories; namely Section Officers in BS‑17 and Section Officers in BS‑

18. According to him since appointment of Section Officer in BS‑17 to the post of Section Officer in BS‑18 is regarded as promotion, there was absolutely no justification to take a different view in case of appellant's movement from lesser post of Joint Director (BS‑18 plus Special Pay of Rs.275) to higher post of the same designation (BS‑19). On the other hand the argument advanced on behalf of the official respondents was that since the appellant's appointment to higher scale of pay did not involve higher responsibilities and duties, his appointment did not amount to promotion but it was merely the up-gradation of post. We have given our due thought to the arguments of both the parties. The respondent's own admission as contained in their written statement is as under: "Accordingly Mr. Baqar Ali Khan, Joint Director, Labour (BS‑18) plus Special Pay of Rs.275 p.m. was promoted to the same post in BS‑19 after clearance by the Provincial Selection Board No. II and with approval of the competent authority." It is thus clear that the respondents themselves treated the appellant's induction in higher Scale of Pay (BS‑19) as promotion. Precisely for that reason his case was even referred to Provincial Selection Board No. II for usual scrutiny and recommendations. It was on receipt of the recommendations of the said Board that he was promoted to the higher post of Joint Director. If it was a case of mere up-gradation of the post, the intervention of the Selection Board was uncalled for. In this connection reference may be made to Explanation following rule 8 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. It reads as under: Explanation:‑‑Where a class of posts not being a fixed number or percentage of posts in such class are upgraded as a result of revision of pay scales, the incumbents holding the posts immediately before the upgrading shall continue in the upgraded posts and their continuance shall not be deemed as promotion for the purpose of this part." The above explanation clearly shows that if on revision of pay scales, a class of posts, not being fixed number or percentage, are upgraded such up-gradation shall not be considered as promotion and the incumbents of the post would continue to hold the posts even after the up-gradation thereof. In other words even the cases of up-gradation falling outside the Explanation shall be treated as those of promotion. If the appellant's case is viewed in the light of the above Explanation, it is obviously not covered by the said Explanation. As such B even if the placing of Joint Director's post in BS‑19 is treated as up-gradation of the said post, the appointment to such upgraded post would be by way of promotion. Apart from above it would be pertinent to refer to the case of Section Officers. As stated above Section Officers are placed in two groups; one group is placed in BS‑17 and another group is placed in BS‑

18. The stand taken by the Finance Department in the case of movement of Section Officer from BS‑17 to BS‑18 is reflected in its letter No. FD‑SRI‑1 (45)/75, dated 5th September, 1975 addressed to the Accountant‑General, Sindh. Paras. 2 and 3 of the letter being relevant are reproduced as under: "

2. The matter has been re‑examined as references made in this behalf by Secretariat Departments and Section Officers of Grade‑

18. Appointment of a Section Officer of Secretariat service of Junior Scale from Grade‑17 to Grade‑18 in Senior Scale is a promotion. These Officers, on promotion to Grade‑18, are therefore entitled to the benefits in the matter of fixation of pay as admissible to officers of other services on promotion from Grade‑17 to Grade‑18.

3. It has, therefore, been decided that pay of Grade‑18 Section Officers of Secretariat Service should be fixed allowing benefit under Rule 9(1) of the Sindh (Gazetted) Civil Services (National Scales of Pay) Rules, 1974. Accordingly, this Department's letter No.FD‑SRI‑1504/75, dated the 21st July, 1975 is hereby withdrawn and salary slips issued on the basis of this letter may kindly be revised in accordance with Rule 9(1)." Since the Finance Department had taken a definite stand in regard to Section Officers inasmuch as that their movement from lower post (BS‑17) to higher post (BS‑18) was regarded as their promotion despite the fact that their duties /responsibilities remained the same, it is not understood why the said Department had taken different view, as far as movement of Joint Director, Labour from lower pay scale to higher pay scale was concerned. For above reasons we are of the view that the appellant's appointment as Joint Director in BS‑19 was clearly a promotion and as such his pay in BS‑19 was to be fixed in accordance with rule 9(1) of the Sindh (Gazetted) Civil Services (National Scales of Pay) Rules 1974. Accordingly appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./217/Sr.S ????????? Appeal allowed.