1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Latif Khan special Government pleader for Respondents. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Appellant basically a judicial officer is presently serving as Section Officer (Legislation) Law Department, Government of N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar, approached this ' Tribunal through the present appeal against the order of the respondent Government vide which senior scale (BPS‑18) was refused to him per Notification dated 30‑9‑1987. According to the appellant he joined the judicial service on 9‑4‑1977 as a Civil Judge and was placed at S. No. 10 in the seniority list published by the Government of N.‑W.F.P. on 8‑5‑1979 (copy Annex‑A). 15% of the Civil Judges were to be awarded BPS‑18, according to the policy of the Government and the same was allowed to his colleagues including the last man above him on 24‑4 1982.. Per rules the appellant was to be favoured with the selection grade but the same was delayed on account of a departmental enquiry which was being conducted during the said period. However, he was exonerated of the charges vide order dated 5‑1‑1987 by the then Chief Justice (copy Annex‑B). On receipt of the same he moved the Provincial Govt. for the grant of the selection grade per his application dated 3‑2‑1987, (copy Annex‑C) but the request was refused as his name was not included in the list marked (Annex‑D). His representation (copy annex‑E) dated 19‑10‑1987 had not been decided so far and after the lapse of the statutory period, the present appeal has been fled to allow the senior scale to the appellant on the ground that he is one of the senior most Civil Judges and is entitled to the grant of BPS‑

18. It does not amount to promotion and after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, there is nothing adverse against him. Respondents refuted the claim of the appellant on the ground that he has no locus standi per proviso to section 22 of N.‑W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Tribunal had got no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. However, it was observed that the appellant was not recommended by his parent department for the grant of senior scale on account of an enquiry initially but he was recommended in 1985 along‑with a few other officers for the grant of selection grade from 5‑3‑1984, but the same was refused to him on account of the enquiry per decision of the Provincial Selection Board dated 23‑1‑1986. Again the High Court recommended him for the same but he was not considered suitable for the grant of the selection grade per findings of the Provincial Selection Board dated 1‑9‑1987 due to the unsatisfactory record. His representation was rejected by the authority. It can be granted to an officer having satisfactory and good record and mere seniority is no criteria to be considered for the grant of the selection grade. The case of the party was in nut shell reproduced above. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the record of the appellant after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry in his favour is blotless and there is nothing adverse against him so as to disentitle him from the grant of the selection grade. Since no adverse remarks had been conveyed to him m the last so many years, therefore, the appellant can claim definitely the grant of the selection grade and there is no bar in the way of the Tribunal to accept his claim. On the other hand, learned Special Govt. Pleader argued that since it has got no relevance with the terms and conditions of his service, the claim of the appellant cannot be acceded to. We have given our patient hearing to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have come to the conclusion that this Tribunal is competent to adjudicate upon the matter because the grant of 15% selection grade was inserted through an order of the Provincial Government and a Government servant on the basis of length of service and good record become entitled to it. So, it cannot be argued that there is bar in term of the provisions of Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 or Service Tribunals Act, 1974. It is related with the terms and conditions of the service of an officer. So far as lag objection that the Tribunal cannot go into the question of the determination 4 fitness of an officer is concerned, it does not hold ground because neither it is promotion, nor it involves the issue of fitness of a person to hold a particular post " The principle behind the grant of the selection grade was that a person otherwise senior but due to one reason or the other if he cannot be promoted to a higher scale he may be awarded some financial benefits. The appellant undoubtedly is the senior most officer amongst the Civil Judges and there being nothing adverse against him, he was rightly recommended by the High Court for the grant of selection grade. The appeal succeeds with the directions to the respondents the award the selection grade to the appellant from the date he was first recommended by the High Court on the ground that the very basis on account which the selection grade was refused to him, i.e. the departmental enquiry, ended in his favour so in the interest of justice and equity, that appellant should be given the selection grade from the date. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. A.A./93/Sr.N. Appeal accepted