1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER). ‑‑‑Since the facts and law applicable in these two appeals in Nos. 183(L) of 1985 and 215(L) of 1995, are identical, we, therefore, propose to dispose of these appeals with a single order.

2. Having been aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15‑11‑1994, whereby the appellants were promoted as Senior Auditors (B‑11) with effect from 1‑7‑1983, the date of promotion of their junior graduate colleagues in pursuance of office order, dated 8th February, 1984, however, with no arrears prior to 1‑11‑1994 of the pay and allowances, permissible in consequence upon the above retrospective promotion, the appellants have preferred‑the present appeals with prayer that relevant section of the said letter, whereby the arrears have been denied, be declared as illegal, void ab initio.

3. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that there were three cadres of non‑gazetted establishment in Audit Department viz. (i) Junior Auditor Scale‑5, Auditor Scale‑7 and Audit and Accounts Assistant, Scale‑

11. However, reorganisation was introduced in the Audit Department vide letter dated 18‑8‑1983. In the reorganisation, a new cadre of Senior Auditor, Scale 11. was created which was to be allowed to the graduate Auditors, scale 7 or those who would become graduate subsequently. As a result of this reorganisation, all the non‑.graduate Auditors were put behind and their channel of promotion blocked altogether.

4. At the later stage another letter dated 24‑5‑1988 was issued by respondent No. 1, whereby the Senior Auditor, Scale‑11 was allowed to non- graduates subject to completion of service of 8 years as Auditor in Scale‑7.

5. All this led to the unrest amongst non‑graduate Auditors as their seniority as Auditor was adversely affected for promotion to scale 11 and thereafter to scale 15.

6. However, this was realised by respondent 'No. 1 after lapse of 11 years. To mitigate the grievances of the non‑graduate auditors, the respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated 15‑I1‑1994, whereby the non- Graduate Auditors, were allowed the cadres of senior Auditors, scale 11 with effect from 1‑7‑1983, the date on which their junior graduate Auditors were allowed that grade i.e. with effect from 1‑7‑1983 but with no arrears.

7. The appellants being aggrieved by this restriction made a representation to the President of Pakistan on 25th January, 1995, but no reply was received till expiry of statutory period of 90 days by 25‑4‑1995.

8. The appellants appeared in person, however, on behalf of the respondents appeared M/s. Iqbal Abid. Accounts Officer, Auditor‑General of Pakistan, Muhammad Ikram, AEA, Finance Division, Iftikharuddin; Accounts Officer and Akhtar Iqbal, Assistant Accounts Officer, A.‑G. Punjab.

9. It was pleaded at bar that prior to the issuance of letter dated 18‑8‑1983, there was a proper channel of promotion from the post of Auditor, Scale 7 to the post of Audit and Accounts Assistant, Scale 11 based on the seniority‑cum‑fitness and there was no concept of promotion on the basis of academic qualification. The new reorganisation deprived the nor, graduate Auditors of their legal right of seniority for the purpose of promotion to the post of Audit and Accounts Assistant, Scale

11. As such they were wrongly denied Scale

11. It was argued since the said restriction had been removed and the Auditors had been allowed pro forma promotion to the cadre of Senior Auditor with retrospective effect i.e. 1‑7‑1983, there was no point to deprive them of the consequential financial benefits i.e. the payment of arrears.

10. It was further contended that there is no difference in the duties of Auditors Scale‑7 and of Senior Auditors Scale‑

11. As such there is no force in the respondent‑department's arguments that the appellant did not practically perform the duties of the higher post. Thirdly it was argued that denial of arrears to the appellant would be the violation of statutory provisions of section 17 of Civil Servants Act (LXXI) of 1973. The relevant portion of the said section is reproduced below: Pay: A civil servant appointed to a post of grade shall be entitled, in accordance with the rules, to the pay sanctioned for such post or grade."

11. The respondent‑department on the other hand took the stand that as a result of agreement between the Union and the respondent‑department, it was agreed that the non‑Graduate Auditors would be allowed pro forma promotion with effect from 1‑7‑1983, the date on which their junior Graduate Auditors were allowed promotion to Scale‑11 subject to the condition that no arrears would be allowed with effect from 1‑7‑1983 to 1‑11‑1994. Since they had made the commitment, they, therefore, should not now violate the same.

12. We have heard both the sides at length and perused the documents. We find that the Graduate Auditors were allowed Scale 11 with effect from 1‑7‑1983 ‑as a result of new reorganisation of Audit Department and the creation of new cadre of Senior Auditors against this there was agitation among the non‑Graduate Auditors whose further chances for promotion was blocked and whose promotion used to be allowed on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis. Ultimately their demand was accepted and they were allowed pro forma promotion to Scale 11 with effect from the date 1‑7‑1983 with the date on which their junior Graduate Auditors were promoted to Scale 11 but subject to condition that no consequential arrears of pay and allowances would be admissible to them. In this respect the respondent took us to the agreement, the Union of non‑Graduate Auditors had entered into with the respondent‑department to the effect that in case they were allowed pro forma promotion with effect from 1‑7‑1983, they would not demand arrears, as consequential result of their pro forma promotion to BS‑11.

13. In view of this position we feel that since the Union have committed with respondent‑department not to draw the arrears of pay and allowances as a result of their pro forma promotion of the non‑Graduate Auditors, now it is incumbent upon them at this time not to violate it. The Supreme Court in this respect held in 1994 CLC 369, as reproduced below: "(b) Administrative decision‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Public functionaries and statutory bodies while dealing with subjects must act justly and fairly in accordance with law and they are bound to stand by their commitments‑‑‑Failure of public functionaries and statutory authorities to stand by their commitment, would result in undermining confidence of public in such bodies."

14. If the Government Agency is to abide by the terms of the agreement, there is no reason why the other party should not observe the same terms of the agreement, when they had already committed.

15. For the reasons recorded above, we do not accept the appeals and accordingly it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

16. Parties be informed. H.B.T./77/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.