1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑The facts leading to this appeal, as stated before us, are that the appellant was working as an Adminis trative Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer, Buildings & Roads Department in June, 1962 when he was appointed as Progress Officer in the Planning & Development Department where he continued for 8 years till June, 1970 when he was sent back to his parent Depart ment. The post of Administrative Officer carried the Class‑II scale of pay whereas the post of Progress Officer was in Clans‑I Junior scale. The appellant was not allowed the pay of Progress Officer. Sub sequently, a Special Pay of Rs. 100 p. m. was sanctioned to him as Administrative Officer retrospectively from 1957, but even this Special pay was not allowed to him by the A. G. for the period of 8 years from June, 1962 to June, 1970 on the grounds that the special pay was for the post of Administrative Officer and not for Progress Officer. The appellant served a notice on the respondent but to no avail. He filed a representa tion before the Chief Secretary under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 but no reply was received by him in spite of the expiry of 90 days. The appellant has now made a prayer before this Tribunal to decide the case of his pay.

2. The respondent has argued that the appellant had accepted the terms and conditions of appointment as Progress Officer which amongst others included a condition to the effect that he would be allowed "his present pay and his existing grade." As such it was argued that he was not entitled to the normal pay scale of Progress Officer (N. P. S. 17). It was, however, stated that his claim regarding N. P. S. 17 was already sub judice before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. With regard to the Special Pay of Rs. 100 p. m. it has been stated by the respondent that no such special pay was attached to the post of Progress Officer and as such the appellant could draw it only for the period he actually worked as an Administrative Officer. Against this contention the appellant has argued that the term present Pay' meant the Pay that he was to get as Adminis trative Officer and included the special pay.

3. We have heard the arguments of both sides. While we observe that apparently it was unfair not to allow the appellant the pay scale of the post in which he worked satisfactorily for eight years, he had himself accepted the offer of appointment on the condition that he would get his present pay and grade. As far as the question of special pay is concer ned, the appellant was offered "his present pay and his existing grade (Class‑III)" and not his substantive pay in the grade. The term `pay' as defined in the C. S. R., Vol. 1, Part I para. 2.44 sub‑clause (a) (11) includes `special pay'. Even otherwise the intention of the condition regarding his pay in the letter of appointment could only be to allow him whatever pay he would get as an Administrative Officer instead of the (higher) pay of the Progress Officer as otherwise there would have been no question of his accepting lesser emoluments that be was to get as Administrative Officer. We are therefore, of the view that the appellant must get what ever pay he would have drawn had he been working as an Administrative officer and as such is entitled to the Special Pay of Rs. 100 p. m. during the period be worked as Progress Officer. We direct that he may be paid accordingly. The appeal is accepted with costs.