1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

9. The issues for determination by us can be reduced to the following :‑ (a) What were the circumstances under` which the Ministry of Education letter dated 4th October, 1977 allowing full pay to the appellant was issued and whether its cancellation was justified by a subsequent letter of 1st November. 1977 depriving the appellant of his full pay ? (b) What is the difference between the terms and conditions allowed for those going abroad under the Cultural Exchange Programme on the one hand and those of the Technical Assistance Programme on the other. Are the terms Cultural Exchange Programme and the Technical Assistance Programme defined anywhere by either of the two respondent Ministries with separate terms and conditions ?

10. It is on record that the Deputy Secretary concerned in the Education Ministry, initiated a note dated 3rd October, 1977 wherein he stated, categorically, that the case of Mr. R. A. Sial stood covered by the Ministry of Finance O. M. dated 31st October, 1958. The appellant was, therefore, considered entitled to full pay and allowances accruing to the Government servants proceeding abroad for higher studies. The said Deputy Secretary placed a copy of the O. M. dated 31st October, 1958 on; the file and marked the case to the DFA (Education) for early confirmation of the decision. It is also on record in the hand of the DFA (Education) dated 3rd October, 1977 saying :‑ "This was confirmed by Mr. S. M. H. Farouqi, Deputy Secretary i.e, Finance on phone this morning." The sanction letter dated 4‑10‑1977 originating from the Ministry of Education was, therefore, issued with the prior approval of the Ministry of Finance. However, the DFA as an afterthought desired reconsideration of the case of the appellant. The Section Officer concerned in the Ministry of Education in his note dated 30th October, 1977 marked to the Deputy Secretary (Foreign Training) said that even though Mr. R. A. Sial was allowed to draw full pay during his study abroad in consultation with the F. A. Organisation and in accordance with the Finance Ministry O.M. dated 31st October, 1958, the fact of the matter is that; "the cultural scholarships are awarded on competition basis to candi dates who succeed in winning these scholarships. They are then appraised of their selections Subsequently, they sort out the matters pertaining to their sort, etc. themselves. Normally awardees, if employees, are al awed to draw salary etc. subject to their entitlement,

68. The case of Mr. Sial, therefore, cannot be different from those Government servants who proceed abroad on scholarships under similar programmes.

69. We may, therefore, cancel the sanction already issued and allow him‑ to draw the salary subject to his entitlement." Thus came about the cancellation of the original letter of 4‑10‑1977 by another letter of the Ministry of Education issued on 1st November, 1977. The Ministry of Education, who are now showing avuncular concern towards the appellant, are no less to blame in bowing before the Finance without the slightest pangs This was a case where they could and should have taken a stand and not accepted the cancellation of original letter meekly and willingly as they did. Once, having succumbed, all their subsequent demonstrations of injured feeling for the appellant are quite meaningless, in our opinion. Their conduct, henceforth, was that of a supplicant before the Finance. In this connection, we would like to refer to Education Secretary's D. O. dated 31‑8‑1980 to the Finance Secretary, in which there was request for restoring the full pay of the appellant because such a Sanction letter had been issued with the approval of the Ministry of Finance. This D. O. was replied to by the Additional Secretary Finance on 9‑11‑1980 and we regret to state that it has a state ment which can be easily termed as false, even though it may have been made because those lower down may not have informed the Additional Secretary correctly, although he should have gone deeper into the case. The Additional Finance Secretary had stated; "....the sanction for the deputation of Mr. Sial was issued by the Ministry of Education witho6t the concurrence of the Regulation Wing of Ministry of Finance " The Secretary Education wrote another D. O. on 13‑5‑1981 to Secretary, Finance pleading the case of the appellant. The Secretary Finance while rejecting the case vide his D. O. dated 2‑6‑1981 added yet another dimension saying that the case of the appellant should have been processed through the Economic Affairs Division if the appellant were to be treated as on duty abroad. It is, in our opinion, for anyone to see how much confusion prevails in our highest echelons of administration which can only be seen in their decisions.

11. The Ministry of Finance have tried to defend the cancellation of original letter of 4‑10‑1977 with the stereotyped and of repeated argu ment : "if any inadvertent error is discovered after the issue of orders, the Government has the power to rectify the error and issue revised orders. Moreover no salary was received by the appellant before the sanction was recalled." This argument is devoid of fore because a decisive step having been taken in issuing a sanction letter, it could not be recalled. The appellant had left for Berlin and the change to his detriment occurred behind his back. Had he been in Pakistan and asked his choice of the revised letter of 1st November, 1977, the situation would have been different. In that eventuality, he would have either accepted the study tour without pay and allowances or he would have refused to proceed abroad, but he would not have been left high and dry as has happened to him in this case. The Government, being committed, could under no circumstances go back on its commit ment of paying the appellant his full pay and allowances in the circum stances of this particular case.

12. The next argument, in defence of its arbitrary action, by the Finance is; "DFA (Education) had consultation with Mr. S. M. H. Farooqui, Deputy Secretary on telephone only. For a careful examination in the light of rules, consultations should have been made in writing. Telephone consultations are considered to be off the record and cannot be treated as documentary evidence." While repelling the above, largely specious, argument, all we would like to say is that the contents of telephonic conversation were reduced in writing as quoted at para. 10 above and anything that comes in writing cannot remain off the record and we are certain that now the Finance Division would have similar views, as we have, on this everyday issue. Further, we shall be loath to legitimizing the inefficiency of the F. A. Organisation and shall say it in so many words that if they make mistakes, as in this case, there is no earthly reason why someone else should suffer the consequences thereof.

13. The respondents have stressed with reference to para. 10 (d) of the appeal that the orders in Finance Division's O.M. No. F8. (2)R‑II‑(II)/58, dated 31st October, 1958, are not applicable in cases of visits abroad for higher studies under Cultural Exchange Programme. With reference to para. 10 (c) of the appeal the respondents have emphasised "that the period spent by the appellant was the period spent in pursuit of higher studies and not training". We are mystified by this brand of reasoning or verbiage. We have nowhere been able to see on record that either of the respondent Ministries have cared to draw up separately and distinctly what facilities/ privileges are allowed under the Cultural Exchange Programme as against the Technical Assistance Programme and what intrinsic difference lies between the two. To us, therefore, this is a gray area needing unambiguous instructions, if the bureaucratic complexities are ‑to be avoided in future for the sake of out poor deputationists abroad. While in passing, we may mention that the record made available to us does show‑cases where our students in GDR have deserted due to financial hardships and it goes to the credit of the appellant that he accomplished his mission with a very good report from GDR despite raw treatment by the Education and Finance Ministries.

14. As a result of the foregoing averments, we have no hesitation in accepting this appeal. While so doing, we would like to mention that the Ministries of Finance and Education have, between them, treated the appellant rather shabbily. This could have been avoided. We order, therefore, that the appellant shall be paid his full pay and allowances as laid down in the Ministry of Education letter dated 4‑10‑1977 by treating him as on duty from 1st October, 1977 to 8th July, 1980. He shall also b paid any increments which may have fallen due during the said period.

15. No order as to costs.

16. Parties be informed. Appeal accepted.