1995 PLP 1647 (SCMR)

(Malik Gulab Khan) Section Officer. Planning & Development Division (Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Section Officer), Islamabad. Copy forwarded to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Planning Unit) with reference to their O.M. NO.AE/Admn (489)74, dated 21‑9‑1988. (Sd.) (Malik Ghulab Khan), Section Officer." As a follow‑up of the O.M. dated 24‑9‑1989 issued by the 'Establishment Division, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture addressed an O.M. dated 13‑12‑1989 to the Establishment Division requesting them to ask the Planning and Development Division to implement the decision of the Establishment Division dated 24:9‑1989 by inducting the respondents in the cadre strength of Economists Group. It appears that in the meantime one of the respondents, namely, Muhammad Aleem Khan made a representation to the Planning Division for induction of his name as well as the names of his 5 other colleagues in the Economists Group in pursuance of the directive of Establishment Division dated 24‑9‑1989. This representation of respondent Muhammad Aleem Khan was forwarded by the Food and Agriculture Division to the Planning Division on 8‑4‑1990. It was in response to this representation of Mr. Muhammad Aleem Khan (respondent in Civil Appeal No‑356 of 1993), the Planning Division informed the Ministry of Food and Agriculture regretting their inability to induct the said Muhammad Aleem Khan, Research Officer, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Cooperatives in the Economists Group on the ground that Rules notified on 3‑10‑1984 for recruitment of posts in the Economists Group did not permit such inductions. It was in the above stated background that the respondents preferred service appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal which were allowed and the Government of Pakistan, Planning Division; was directed to induct respondents in the Economists and Planners Group constituted by the Government in 1976 r in the cadre of officers in BPS‑17, by implementing the directive of Establishment Division dated 24‑9‑1989. The learned Deputy Attorney General in support of the above appeals contended that the up-gradation and promotion of respondents as Research Officers in BPS‑17 was in contravention of the recruitment rules notified on 3‑10‑1984 and as such the P & D Division was justified in refusing to give effect to the directives of the Establishment Division, regarding induction of respondents in Economists and Planners Group constituted by the Government in the year 1976. It is also contended by the learned DyA: G. that at the time the post of Research Investigators was upgraded from BPS‑16 to BPS‑17 respondents were not working as Economic Investigators and as such they were not qualified to be appointed in the Economists Group as they did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for that post. The contention of DyA.‑G. has not pressed us at all. From the facts referred to above, it is quite clear that the P & D Division had at no time questioned the up-gradation of the post of Research Investigators to that of Research Officers and consequent promotion of the respondents in BPS‑

17. In fact the learned DyA: G. once again stated before us that the appellants do not question the validity of the order upgrading the post of Research Investigators from BPS‑16 to BPS‑17 and re-designating the same as Research Officer (BPS‑17). From the, material on record it appears, that the main objection of P & D Division against the induction of these respondents in the Economists Group was that the seniority of other officers already working in BPS‑17 will be disturbed. This objection of P & D Division Was not sufficient to debar the respondents from induction in the Economists and Planners Group constituted by the Government in 1976. It is not disputed before us that the up-gradation of the post of respondents from Research Investigators to Research Officers in BPS‑17 was done by the competent authority. In Rule 8(2) of the Rules of Business 1973, it is clearly provided that if there is a difference of opinion between the two Divisions of the Government the Minister primarily concerned shall try to resolve the difference in consultation with the other Minister concerned and in case no agreement is reached and the Minister primarily concerned desires to press the case, the case shall be submitted to the Prime Minister and if the Prime Minister so desires to the Cabinet. The learned DyA.‑G. has not been able to point out from the material before us in these cases that the opinion given by the Establishment Division vide Memo. No.2/5/84‑CP.2 dated 24th September 1989 in respect of the induction of respondents in the Economists Group was specifically dissented to by the P & D Division, but it is argued by the DyA: G. that it can be inferred by way of implication that P & D Division did not agree with the opinion. of the Establishment Division while rejecting the representation of one of the respondents Muhammad Aleem Khan. This, argument on its face does not appear to be correct as even while rejecting the representation of Muhammad Aleem Khan the P & D Division did not make any reference to the opinion of the Establishment Division dated 24th September 1989 and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the P & D Division had disagreed with the opinion of the Establishment Division dated 24th of September 1989 referred to above. However, assuming that the decision on the representation of one of respondents Muhammad Aleem Khan by the P & D Division amounted to expressing an opinion contrary to the opinion given by the Establishment Division in this regard, the matter had to be referred to the Prime Minister in accordance with Rule 8(2) of the Rules of Business, 1973. The learned DyA.‑G. has fairly and candidly placed before us a summary dated 30‑12‑19$1 prepared for the Prime Minister on the appeal preferred by the respondents in which the entire history of the cases was narrated. The Prime Minister Secretariat on the aforesaid summary asked the Establishment Division to make a reference to the Federal Public Service Commission (FPCS) and seek their guidance in the matter, on 26‑5‑1992. In pursuance of this directive of the Prime Minister the matter was referred by the Establishment Division to FPSC which by its letter dated 22‑3‑1993 gave the following opinion with regard to the induction of respondents in the Economists Group:‑‑ From: Muhammad Khushnud, Director. To : Mr. Fayyaz H. Zaidi, Section Officer (CP‑2), Cabinet Secretariat, (Establishment Division), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Subject: INDUCTION OF SIX RESEARCH OFFICERS IN THE ECONOMISTS GROUP. Sir, I am directed to refer to the correspondence resting with your Letter No.2/5/84‑CP.2, dated 20th December, 1992 on the above subject and to say that the commission has examined the case in detail. The issues raised before the Prime Minister have since been settled, though at a different forum viz. the Federal Service Tribunal, who have admitted the petition and decided in favour of the aggrieved employees.

2. The Planning and Development Division had raised the following objections to the absorption of the aggrieved Research Officers in the Economists Group: (i) Some of the persons did not possess the prescribed minimum qualification i.e. Master's degree in Economics in Second Division; and (ii) A belated and retrospectively operative promotion/absorption would disturb the seniority in the Economists Group and would lead to litigation.

3. The first objection of the Planning and Development Division is not tenable as the said condition of second class Master's degree was relaxed in respect of some 13 Research Officers who were inducted in the Group as per gradation lists amended from time to time vide Planning'‑ and Development Division's O.M. No.2(2) EG/PD/85, dated 16th December 1987, 21st March 1988 and 13th July 1988. If this condition could be relaxed for 13 inductees, there is apparently no reason why the waiver. should not be extended to the others. As regards their inter se seniority, the Federal Service Tribunal has attributed the hardship to the failure of the Government to implement a the decision of the competent authority.

4. In view of the above, the Commission advises that the. 6 aggrieved Research Officers may be inducted in the Economists Group as per Establishment Division's advice of 24‑9‑1989. The summary presented to the Prime Minister in this regard was in the meantime returned by the Prime Minister to the Secretary Establishment on 29‑3‑1992 and thereafter on 28‑6‑1993 the Establishment Division through its memorandum of the same date forwarded the comments of the FPSC to the Planning and Development Division for necessary action under intimation to the Establishment Division. From the above narration of facts, it is quite clear that the post of Research Investigators was upgraded to BPS‑17 and re-designated as Research Officer under the orders of competent authority and the induction of the respondents as Research Officers in BPS‑17 in the Economists Group was approved by the competent authority and this decision of the competent authority was communicated to P & D Division by the Establishment Division vide its O.M. dated 24‑9‑1989. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned DyA: G. that the induction of the respondents was in contravention of the recruitment rules has no force. The recruitment rules dated 3‑10‑1984 relied by the learned DyA.‑G. provided for filling up of the posts of Research Officers (BPS‑17) 100% through initial appointment. On the contrary the Administrative Reforms of 1976 which created the Economists Group provided for recruitment to 75% of posts in BPS‑17 by direct recruitment and 25% through promotion on the basis of selection. It is, therefore, quite clear that the decision to upgrade the‑‑ posts of Research Investigators from BPS‑16 to rBPS‑17 and to re-designate it as, Research Officer (BPS‑17) by the competent authority was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Reforms of 1976 which could not be invalidated on the strength of recruitment rules of 1984: We may additionally, mention here that it was admitted before p us by the learned DyA: G. as well as the representative of P & D Division during the course of hearing of these appeals that on 18‑11‑1984 in identical circumstances 6 Research Investigators who were upgraded as Research Officers were inducted in the Economists Group constituted by the Government in 1976 although they did not qualify for appointment as Research Officers in terms of recruitment rules which came into effect on 3rd of October 1984. The learned DyA.‑G. very candidly stated before us that he was unable to point out any distinction between the cases of 6 officers inducted in the Economists Group on 18‑11‑1984 and the respondents. As a result of above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of Service Tribunal which simply directed the authorities concerned to implement the decision of the Establishment Division dated 24‑9‑1989. These appeals, accordingly, fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the cases. M.B.A./F‑362/S Appeal dismissed.