1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑Appellant Mr. Ahsan Yousuf Farooqi is employed with the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). He was promoted to Pay Group V from Pay Group IV vide Personnel Order No. 22 (May)/86, dated 4‑5‑1986. At the time of his promotion, he was drawing basic pay in Pay Group IV at Rs.1,

470. On his promotion to Pay Group V, his pay was fixed at Rs.1,420 in the scale of Rs.1;300‑‑60‑‑1,780 and thus his pay was reduced by Rs.50 per month. He made representation to the Admn. Manager (Finance) on 18‑2‑1987 for re- determination of his pay. He was informed under letter dated 2‑3‑1987 that his pay had been correctly fixed. He made further representation to the next higher Authority, the Director Administration, PIAC, on 2‑4‑1987. He was informed under letter dated 26‑4‑1987 that his pay had been correctly fixed and his pay stood increased by over Rs.300 per month. He then made representation to the Managing Director, PIAC on 14‑5‑1987. After affording him opportunity of hearing in person, he was informed under letter dated 10‑6‑1987 that his pay had been fixed in accordance with the standing orders and there was no scope for revision of his pay. He then preferred this appeal on 11‑7‑1987.

2. The respondents have resisted the appeal contending that the pay of the appellant was fixed in accordance with the standing orders.

3. Mr. Khalid Javed, Advocate, has argued the appeal on behalf of the appellant. Mr. S. Mahmoodul Hasan, Advocate, has contested the appeal on behalf of the respondents. The dispute over fixation of pay is the basic pay the appellant was drawing at the time of his promotion from Pay Group IV to Pay Group V vide order dated 4‑5‑1986. The‑ appellant was lastly drawing pay in Pay Group IV at Rs.1,470 on his promotion to Pay Group V. His basic pay was fixed at Rs.1,420 which was by bare arithmetical calculation less by Rs.50. The respondents have attempted to justify the fixation of his pay by putting forth the plea that the basic pay of the appellant he was drawing lastly in Pay Group IV at Rs. 1,470 was inclusive of the dearness allowance of Rs.175 per month and for determination of his pay in the next Pay Group V, his basic pay was taken to be Rs.1,295 after deducting Rs.175 from Rs.1,470 and thereafter he was allowed benefit of two advance increments of Rs.60 each and his pay was fixed at Rs.1,

420. This plea was reiterated by the learned counsel for the respondents at the hearing of the appeal. The contention of the appellant on the other hand, has been that the basic pay of Rs.1,470 he was lastly drawing in Pay Group IV did not include any dear ness allowance as that allowance was discontinued when the pay scales were revised in the year 1984 and there was no justification in reducing his pay on his promotion. The appellant has based his case on the revised pay scales notified under Administrative Order No.29/84, dated 11‑7‑1984 and clause (8) of Regulation 23 of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the PIAC Regulations, 1985). He has also placed reliance on a circular letter dated 2‑12‑1986. The respondents rejected his claim on the basis of a circular No. MRP/DALL/22/86/308, dated 5‑10‑1986 issued by the Manager, Remuneration Planning.

4. By virtue of revision of pay scales under Administrative Order No.29/84, dated 11‑7‑1984, the pay scales of the employees in Pay Group‑IV was Rs.965‑‑50‑‑1,415‑‑55‑‑1,910; and that of Pay Group V was Rs.1,300‑‑60‑‑1,

780. It was specifically mentioned in the said Administrative Order that dearness allowance which was paid to the employees in Pay Groups I to V was discontinued. It follows that the revised pay scales of Pay Groups I to V employees did not include any dearness allowance, and if, at all the previous dearness allowance was taken into consideration while revising the pay scales, the benefit of dearness allowance was merged in the revised pay scales which constituted the substantive pay scales. Pay and allowance of the PIAC employees are regulated under the provisions of Regulation 23 of the PIAC Regulations, 1985. Paragraph 8 thereof lays down that on promotion from one post to another or from one Pay Group to another, the basic pay of an employee other than Cockpit Crew would be fixed after allowing additional increment in the Pay Group of the higher post if the quantum of increase in the basic pay on promotion from a lower to a higher grade or pay group is equal to or less than a full increment. By application of the aforesaid Regulation, the appellant's pay should have been fixed in the revised pay scale of Pay Group V, i.e. Rs.1,300‑‑60‑‑1,780, at Rs.1,480, i.e. the next above stage in the revised pay scale of Pay Group V plus one increment of Rs.60, which come to Rs.1,

540. The learned counsel for the respondents could not explain under what rules the appellant was allowed two increments in refixation of his pay on his promotion, instead of one increment allowed under Regulation 23(8) of the PIAC Regulations, 1985. The respondents have placed reliance on a circular dated 6‑10‑1986 issued by the Manager, Remuneration Planning in pursuance of General Manager (P&R) letter dated 6‑4‑1986 for fixation of pay of promotees from Pay Group IV to Pay Group V in accordance with the Chart appended thereto, showing that pay of a promotee from Pay Group IV drawing pay at Rs.1,470 was to be fixed in Pay Group V in the revised pay scales at Rs.1,

420. This chart seems to have been prepared on the assumption that the revised pay scales of Pay Group IV employees included dearness allowance and, therefore, their last pay drawn was to be revised by deducting the supposed dearness allowance from their basic pay last drawn, but that approach was misconceived and is not approved.

5. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant's pay shall be fixed at Rs.1,540 in Pay Group V with effect from 1‑3‑1986, i.e. the date of his promotion, and he shall be paid the difference of pay accordingly. The appellant shall also be entitled to the cost of the appeal. A.A./682/Sr.F Appeal accepted.