1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant, Amir Ahmad, while serving as Assistant Accounts Officer, in pay scale 17, was required to work against a post of Audit Officer, B‑18, for the period 9‑12‑1974 to 28‑2‑1977. Initially, he was not allowed the salary in pay scale 18, but on his representation, his pay was fixed in pay scale 18 at a stage in that scale which was immediately above the pay which he was drawing in pay scale

17. He was also not allowed increments falling on 1‑12‑1975 and 1‑12‑1976.

2. In the present appeal, it was first of all contended that the appellant should be allowed benefit of years of service formula, whereby pay of a civil servant on promotion from pay scale 17 to pay scale 18 is to be fixed by allowing increments equal to the years for which he served in excess of seven years in pay scale

17. After some arguments, however, the appellant and his learned counsel gave up this claim.

3. The claims of the appellant which require to be decided are whether he was entitled to the increments falling on 1‑12‑1975 and 1‑12‑1976 and was also entitled to fixation of pay in pay scale 18 by allowing one premature increment.

4. The learned counsel for respondent has taken up the stand that increment can be allowed only when there is a promotion from lower grade to higher grade and that since the appellant was required to work against a pay scale 18 post, no increment could be claimed by him. The matter stands settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Imdad Ali Khan v. Pakistan P L D 1986 S C 349 wherein it was decided that where a civil servant suffering from no ineligibility or deficiency is promoted or called upon to discharge full duties of higher post, he is entitled to increment in pay scale of higher post for so long as he discharges those duties and holds such a post. In view of this authentic enunciation of law, we accept the appellant's claim that he is entitled to increments falling on 1‑12‑1975 and 1‑12‑1976.

5. As regards fixation of pay by allowing one premature increment, reference was made to the provisions of Ministry of Finance Office Memo. No. 1(2) NG‑Imp/71, dated 8th March, 1972 and Office Memo. of the same number, dated 16th February, 1977. The former in paragraph, (1) provides that while fixing the pay on promotion in the higher scale, one premature increment will be admissible to the civil servant. The latter, in para. 2, provides that the word 'promotion' occurring in paragraph (1) has been used in the context of pay fixation rule and not in the context of recruitment rule. It was further provided that accordingly it meant an appointment from one post to another involving assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance for purposes of F.R. 22 and F.R.

30. In view of this clear provision, it does not lie with the respondent department to argue that one premature increment would be admissible only when a formal promotion is made. The result is that we accept the other claim of the appellant also that his pay with effect from 9‑12‑1974 in pay scale 18 should be fixed by allowing him one premature increment, as provided for in paragraph (1) of Part I of Office Memo. of 8th March, 1972.

6. The appeal is accepted as above, and the parties be informed accordingly. A. A./367/Lb./S