1980 PLP 627 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 22nd January, 1980. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the order dated 27th November, 1976 of the Sind Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Mst. Bilquis Rifat Sajid was employed in the Education Department as Senior English Teacher w.e.f. 16th May, 1963. Some posts of Head mistresses became vacant and some fresh posts were created. The petitioner was posted as Headmistress against one of the newly‑created posts, vide Notification No. W (1)694/718/73‑74 dated 17th September, 1973. Some other lady teachers were similarly appointed vide the same Notification. The petitioner assumed duty as Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Moro with effect from 21st September, 1973. Later, on the recom mendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, by Notification No. S. O. (E‑IV‑M)2/74 dated 12th February. 1975 she, along with five other ladies, was formally promoted to the post of Headmistress, which carried National Pay Scale No.

17. Subsequently, by Notification No. S. O. E. IV/2/73‑74 dated 16th August, 1976 the promotion of the petitioner and other ladies was regularized with effect from 13th August, 1976. The petitioner, however, felt that she was entitled to receive pay of N. P. S. 17 with effect from 21st September, 1973 and in this behalf, filed an appeal before the Sind Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed her appeal vide the impugned Order with the following observations: ‑ "It is important to note that the aforesaid order of the promotion was issued by the Director of Education, who was not competent to promote the appellant and others to the senior post but the power of promotion vested in the Government. So promotion of the appellant by the Director being by an incompetent authority it did not give any right to the appellant and others to claim pay of the superior post. In fact it could be treated only an ad hoc promotion or a stop‑gap arrangement till the question of the promotion of the appellant and others was considered and decided by the Selection Committee and finally by the Government. So she is entitled to draw the pay of grade 17 when she was promoted by the Government with effect from 12th February, 1975." Hence the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having been promoted in N. P. S. 17 with effect from 21st September, 1973, refusal to pay her the emoluments of this National Pay Scale was in contravention of section 18 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. The contention is misconceived because it is evident from Notification dated 17th September, 1973 that promotion of the petitioner on 21st September, 1973 against the newly‑created post of Headmistress was on ad hoc basis. The relevant portion of the said Notification is as follows: ‑ "The lady officials at serial Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 7 will work as Head mistresses on their own pay and grade till their appointment is regularised by the Government" The petitioner has been mentioned at S. No. 6 in the Notification. It is evident that she had accepted the condition that she would receive the pay of her own grade till such time as her appointment in the post of Grade 17 is regularized The appointment was regularized vide Notifi cation dated 16th August, 1976 on the recommendation of the Depart mental Promotion Committee. The learned Tribunal, therefore granted her pay in the National Pay Scale No. 17 from that date, i.e. 12th February, 1975. The main grievance of the petitioner, however, appeared to be that although the Tribunal had granted her pay in the N. P. S. 17 with effect from 12th February, 1975 and as such her appeal had evidently been partly accepted yet the Tribunal had stated at the end of the impugned Order that her appeal has been dismissed. We are inclined to agree with this submission, Considering that the Tribunal had granted her pay in the National Pay Scale No. 17 from the date from which she was formally promoted in that grade on the recommendation of the Depart mental Promotion Committee, she is justified in asserting that her appeal was in fact partly accepted and not dismissed. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with the observation that her appeal had wrongly been described by the Tribunal as having been dismissed because in fact it had been partly accepted.