1995 PLP 18 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑By this common order we intend to dispose of above petitions which are directed against the judgment dated 27‑9‑1992 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeals Nos.10‑14(L)/90 filed by the respondent No.1 in each of the above petitions, for claiming the difference in the pay, allowing the same for the following reasons: "Under the above circumstances and after hearing the parties, it is a established as under:‑‑ (i) That the orders of posting of the appellant against higher post of Accounts Officer‑1I Gd‑17 cannot be regarded on current charge basis in Gd‑16 as these orders are invalid and incompetent ab initio. According to the spirit of the orders, it is to be regarded as appellant's temporary promotion to officiate/hold the charge of the higher post. (ii) That the departmental representation/appeal of the appellant was in order. (iii) That the delay in making an appeal to the FST to pray/claim for arrears of pay and allowances for higher post was not appreciable and did not attract the limitation aspects in view and spirit of the judgments, as quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant:" The petitioner, has therefore, filed present petitions for leave to appeal.

2. The brief facts are that respondent No.1 in each of the above petitions, were working as Accountant in Grade‑

16. They were promoted to officiate as Account Officers on current charge basis pending clearance from the D.P.C. (Departmental Promotion Committee) against the existing vacancies of Grade‑

17. They were promoted on regular basis after clearance by the Departmental Promotion .Committee. After that they preferred claim for higher pay in Grade‑17 for the period prior to their regular promotion which claim was declined by the department as well as by the Appellate Authority. Thereupon they filed above Service Appeals which were allowed.

3. In support of the above petitions Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, learned ASC appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that since respondents in the above petitions were promoted to officiate as Account Officer on current charge basis, they were not entitled to higher pay for Grade‑17 prior to their regular promotion.

4. The Tribunal has held that factually the above respondents were promoted to officiate/hold the charge of the higher post and they could not be regarded on current charge basis. Since no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in the present case and as the impugned judgment appeared to be just and proper, we are not inclined to grant leave. Leave is accordingly refused. A.A./F‑314/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.