1998 PLP 1277 (SCMR)

SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.

The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Education has preferred above six petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20-8-1996 delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby certain reliefs were allowed to the respondent Abdur Rehman Sheikh.

2. The litigation between the petitioner and the respondent is chequered one and to summarise the same it is stated that the respondent was appointed as Principal, Islamabad College for Boys where he served from 16-12-1989 to 18-2-1991. On 19-2-1991 the respondent was transferred to Sindh Madrasatul Islam, Karachi to serve as Principal of the said Institution where he performed his duties till 23-4-1994. After the transfer of the respondent litigation commenced between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to certain grievances for the redress of which the respondent had invoked jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal prior to the passing of the order impugned. The appeal in which the impugned order was passed was preferred by the respondent on account of non-implementation of the previous orders of the Service Tribunal and for the redress of the following grievances:-- (i) Non-payment of house rent according to entitlement of the respondent; (ii) Non-payment of the Project Director Allowance; (iii) Non-payment of the entertainment allowance; (iv) Non-payment of the disturbance allowance; (v) Non-payment of deputation pay; (vi) Refusal of the authorities to keep his lien in the Islamabad Model Colleges on his transfer to Sindh Madrassatul Islam on deputation basis , (vii) Period from 19-2-1991 to 23-4-1994 spent by the respondent as Principal Sindh Madrassatul Islam be declared to be deputation period; (viii) Islamabad College for Boys had been directed to transfer an amount of Rs.58,890, contribution of the respondent's pension for the period he served in Sindh Madrassatul Islam i.e. 26-10-1986 to 18-2-1991 after deducting Rs.25,000 which the respondent had received from the Madrassah in excess of the amount of the house hold transportation charges from Karachi to Islamabad; (ix) Balance of TA/DA was not paid; and (x) Refusal of the authorities to allow move-over to the respondent in BPS-20 on reaching the maximum of BPS-19. while he was in Islamabad College for Boys, but instead the respondent was informed that he was actually in BPS-18, and therefore, the question of move over did not arise.

3. The Federal Service Tribunal while examining the question of payment of rent ordered that if the respondent had been provided the house of his entitlement, i.e. hired house at the rental ceiling as laid down by the Works Division, then he was not entitled to any house rent allowance. The Tribunal also directed that in case the respondent was not provided any house of his entitlement, then he was entitled to house rent allowance [q? Rs.45 per cent of his basic pay scale, but it was held that the respondent was not entitled to rental ceiling and in case he has drawn any advance, the same shall be refunded by him. The Tribunal held that the respondent was not entitled to any project director allowance. With regard to entertainment allowance, the Tribunal held that for the period the respondent was under suspension no such allowance could be paid to him. The disturbance allowance was allowed by the Tribunal to the respondent. Similarly, the respondent was held to be deputationist and deputation allowance was allowed, because the Tribunal in the earlier appeal had declared the respondent's status as deputationist. The petitioner was also directed by the Tribunal to consider the case of the respondent for move-over. It was also held by the Tribunal that the respondent could not have been considered to be a Grade-18 office/as treated by the petitioner.

4. After hearing the leaned counsel in support of these petitions seeking ` leave to appeal against the order impugned, we grant leave to consider the following questions:-- (1) Whether the grant of relief in the manner adopted by the Tribunal is justified in law? (2) Whether the respondent could be treated as deputationist and the finding of the Tribunal in previous appeal in which the petitioner was not heard could be treated to have attained finality as to the status of the respondent? (3) Since the respondent has been sent back to his parent department from Islamabad College for boys, therefore, the question of his lien was irrelevant? (4) The respondent being a permanent employee of the Sindh Madrassatul Islam, whether he could be treated as a civil servant justifying interference by the Service Tribunal? A.A./F-19/S Leave granted.