1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

QAZI HAMID‑UD‑DIN (CHAIRMAN): ‑‑This appeal has been filed by Fazle Rehman on 5‑12‑1990 against the order of Deputy Director of Education dated 31‑10‑1990. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as S.V. Teacher in BPS‑8 vide order dated 25‑11‑1984 (Annexure‑A on the file) which post was later on changed as Assistant Workshop Instructor vide Annexure 'B' and the appellant was appointed/adjusted against this post in BPS‑

8. Subsequently the appellant was promoted as Workshop Instructor in BPS‑14 vide order dated 21‑2‑1987 (Annexure `C') on fixed pay of Rs. 850 P.M. which reads as under: "The following candidates are temporarily appointed as W.Is/A.W.Is. on Rs. 850 P.M. fixed against BPS‑14 with effect from the dates of their taking over charge in the schools noted against their names:‑ S.No Name of candidates Posted at Remarks 1 to 8

9. Fazal Rehman A.W.1 G.H.S. Akhurwala (Technical Diploma Associate Engineer Air Force). G.H.S. Akhurwal, F.R. Kohat Promoted as W.I. against vacant post The appellant was promoted as Workshop Instructor and was made to work against the vacant post in BPS‑14 in Government. High School Akhurwal, F.R. Kohat. The appellant contends that he has passed MA. Political Science, in June 1987, C.T. examination in November, 1987, that he has completed Re?fresher Course from 22‑7‑1989 to 3‑8‑1989, and that he has also passed B.Ed Examination in 1990. The appellant has been claiming that he is entitled to pay in BPS‑15 alongwith increments but has been refused. The appellant made a representation, which was rejected on 31‑10‑1990 and communicated to the appellant on 10‑11‑1990, hence the present appeal on 5‑12‑1990.

2. The respondent department in their reply has assailed the appeal on the grounds of incompetency, non‑maintainability, limitation and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. On factual side it has been stated the post of the appellant was changed from SV to AWI on his own request. It has been further stated that holding of Tribal Domicile Certificate, does not make him entitled for graded pay. The appellant is working as Workshop Instructor in BPS‑15 which is a technical job/post and he is not entitled for graded pay in BPS‑15 against the post of Workshop Instructor on the basis of his MA/CT examination unless the appellant possessed the vocational teacher training in Industrial Art from Government Technical Training Centre as required under the rules. Arguments heard and the record perused.

3. The appellant was appointed/promoted vide Annexure `C' on the file as Workshop Instructor against vacant post in BPS‑14 and was posted to Government High School, Akhurwal, F.R_ Kohat. The contention of the respondent department is that since the appellant did not possess the requisite training, therefore, he was appointed/promoted but was allowed fixed pay of Rs.850 P.M. vide Annexure `C' and contends that the appellant was not posted against the post of Workshop Instructor in BPS‑

15. The plain reading of Annexure `C' does indicate that the appellant was appointed/promoted as Workshop Instructor against vacant post in BPS‑14 and by virtue of Finance Department letter, dated 25th June, 1987, which is annexed with connected Appeal No. 7/91 the post of Workshop Instructor was redesignated as Senior English Teacher Technical and was upgraded to B‑

15. This notification has automatically placed the appellant in B‑15 in time scale and as such the appellant would be entitled to the time scale he claims and his pay shall be regulated in B‑15 from the date he was allowed this scale. The preliminary objections were not pressed. It is worthwhile to mention that the appellant was not given B‑15 through a separate notification but his upgradation was allowed by operation of the Finance Department letter dated 25‑6‑1987. This fact estopped the respondent department from claiming that the appellant was not entitled to the pay of B‑15 and vide Finance Department letter mentioned above the respondent department was bound to allow him the time scale and cannot fix the pay of the appellant at the minimum of B‑15 and disallow increment to him. Therefore, the Tribunal while accepting the appeal, directs that the pay of the appellant be regulated in time scale of B‑15 alongwith increments which the appellant may have earned. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record. H.B.T./169/Sr.N. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.