1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the departmental representative of the P.A.R.C. Besides the Government Rules and order, there is a special law contained in the P.A.R.C., Ordinance, 1981 section 26, of which authorises the Board of Governor P.A.R.C. to frame Rules for all matters for the "Employee (Service Regulations, 1984) herein referred as Regulations and according to the definition clause (4) "Competent Authority" means Board, Executive Committee or Chairman, Officer of the Council to whom the power is delegated under section 9(5) of the Ordinance, under subsection (4) of Regulation 8:‑‑ "Initial appointment shall be made at the minimum pay of the B. P. S: Provided that where a person possesses additional experience or special qualifications, or where a person of the prescribed qualifications or experience for the post is not available, the appointing authority may allow a higher initial pay in the time scale of that post on the recommendation of the Selection Committee concerned:‑‑ Provided further that not more than six increments may be granted in any case." Keeping in view the academic qualification and research work rendered by the appellant, as is evident from his Bio‑data at page 19, experience at page 20 and publications at pages 21 to 25, annexed to the appeal, the competent authority was pleased to grant him advance increments considering him most suitable and in accordance with Regulation 10(3); relating to increments, is reproduced below:‑‑ "Special increments within the scale may be granted by the Board upto B.P.S. 19 on the recommendation of the Chairman duly proceeded and endorsed by the assessment committee appointed for the purpose. "

3. The main hurdle in way of the appellant is Government reluctance that he could not be given the higher scale having fulfilled the requisite tenure but in this respect we feel that it has either overlooked or misinterpreted provisions of para. 6(c) of the order, dated 18‑8‑1983 contained in NO.F.I(I) Imp/83 Government of Pakistan, Finance Division regarding "(Scheme of Basic Pay Scale)" reproduced below:‑‑ "The move‑over in the case of technical and professional categories e.g. Doctors, Engineers, Educationists, Economists, Management Accountant, Scientists, Archaeologists, Geologists, Meteorologists Experts of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Forestry shall be permissible upto B.20, without the condition‑ of stay at the maximum for three years." A careful perusal of para. 6(c) above giving special permission and concession to the professionals and technical incumbents including Scientists cannot be treated at part with their counter‑parts in identical pay scales. It still holds the field having not been withdrawn and the council relied on para. 6(c), a sort of encouragement to the really talented and highly educated civil servants in. various departments and it is on account of this encouragement that Pakistan is not lagging behind in technology and other scientific research fields inclusive of the latest test of "Ghauri Missile". These categories of persons need more encouragement for the overall development; of the "Sacred Land'.".

4. The respondents appear to have not denied the qualifications of the appellants as is evident from their parawise comments on "factual side." In other words the appellant is a scientist of High calibre and was rightly allowed the advance increments by the "competent' Authority". The respondents, despite strenuous efforts made by the appellant in redressal of his grievance, were not able to grant the requisite remedy by application of the usual delaying tactics in one way or the other.

5. It is to observe that the appellant had filed a writ petition prior to filing of the present appeal in this Tribunal, in the Honourable High Court Rawalpindi Bench which was dismissal as withdrawn. The learned counsel for respondents stated that final reply by the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, received pursuant to the reference, dated 7‑12‑1995 by the P.A.R.C., would be communicated to the petitioner/appellant within a period of three weeks from today so as to enable the petitioner to move the Federal Service Tribunal but actually it was delivered on 23‑9‑1997 after delay of about 20 days and there after the present appeal was filed. All authorities under the law are legally bound to supply copies of requisite order etc. as early as possible for curbing delay in disposal of judicial matter on the one hand and calculating spirit of solidarity amongst citizens of the State for further minimising the chances of unwarranted demonstration of conduct -detrimental to peace and good order.

6. Pursuant to what has been stated above, we are constrained to accept the appeal and allow the prayer at serial No.3 with respect to grant of move over w.e.f. 1‑12‑1986 instead of 1‑12‑1989 with further direction that respondents may also consider his eligibility prayed for at paras.4 and 5 of the appeal at page. 9 and if found suitable under the rules be favoured accordingly. The appellant is also allowed costs.

7. Parties be informed accordingly. H.B.T./330/FST Appeal accepted.