1989 PLP 295 (SCMR)

public importance arising in case‑‑Leave to appeal refused. [p. 2961 A & B Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st August, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 11‑4‑1982, whereby move over to N.P.S. 17 was allowed to the respondent. The respondent had reached the ceiling in N.P.S. 16 on 1‑12‑1974 and remained there for three years up to 1‑12‑1977 and had satisfied other conditions for claiming move‑over to N.P.S.

17. He was denied this move‑over on the sole ground that on 1‑5‑1977, a revision of the Pay Scales had taken place whereby the ceiling of N.P.S. 16 had been re‑fixed at a higher rate. It was contended that the ceiling in terms of money having not remained the same it cannot be said that the respondent remained at the ceiling for the requisite three years. This contention of the Federation was dealt with by the Tribunal in the following words:‑‑ "The subsequent orders revising the National Scales of Pay did no. make any special provision in such cases, and, therefore, irrespective of the revision of pay on 1‑5‑1977, the appellant shall have to be considered as having remained at the maximum on 1‑12‑1974, 1‑12‑1975 and 1‑12‑1976. On 1‑12‑1977 in the revised National Scales of Pay, he again got the pay in the maximum of National Pay Scale

16. He, therefore, fully qualified for moving over to Grade‑17 as he had earned reports which were not adverse. Any other interpretation would create anomalous results and it is the duty of the Courts to interpret a provision which does not create such anomalies. It is pertinent to note that with the moving over to a higher grade, a Civil Servant not only gets some additional benefits besides pay increase, but also gets a higher status." The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that except for the alteration in the ceiling by the pay revision no other factor intervened to deprive the respondent of the Mover‑over. His contention was that the revision of the ceiling made a material alteration as pay of the respondent increased thereby within the period during which it was required to remain static. This deprived him of his entitlement otherwise well‑deserved. The Rules applicable to the case do not speak of the amount but deal I with the maximum of the grade or the ceiling prescribed. The respondent had in fact reached that and stayed there for the requisite period. A general revision of pay scales of every one irrespective of the move‑over would not interrupt, delay or put in hybernation the process of move‑over because the Scales remain the same, the maximum of it is enjoyed without any further opening within that Scale. I We do not find that any question of law of public importance arises inn the case and, therefore, leave to appeal is refused. M.Y.H./S‑199/S Leave to appeal refused.