1994 PLP 420 (SCMR)

Detailed facts of the protracted litigation are not given, however, it is clear from the judgment of this Court in the earlier petition for leave to appeal referred to in the earlier part. of this. judgment, that the appellant on his transfer to Sukkur did not join his duty and since then did not serve the Settlement D6partment and that the appellant accepted new appointment in PAY. Base, Chaklala which negatives the appellant's contention that his services were transferred from the Settlement Department to PAY. Authorities. However, the appellant in support of his case has placed reliance on a letter dated 03‑12‑1975 reproduced blow:‑‑ "Subject: Appointment‑‑Ministerial Staff. Mr. BaAir Hussain Bokhari was appointed in this Department as Stenotypist on 14‑1‑1960. As a result of the provincialisation of the Settlement Department, the official was transferred to the Sindh Province. During the period of his service in the regional office at Lahore, the official proved himself a competent Stenotypist, rather he was as good as Stenographer. His work and conduct was quite good. I recommend him for appointment as a Stenographer on the basis of merits. Sd/xx.x.x.xxx.x.xx Dy. Settlement Commissioner (Admin) II‑Egerton Road, Lahore." A plain reading of the letter would show that it was a recommendatory letter certifying the appellant's previous experience in the Settlement Department for his appointment on merits. The appellant was appointed in PAY. vide office order dated 24‑3‑1976 which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "PART I‑‑ `B' CIVILIAN MINISTERIAL STAFF L ENGAGEMENT The under-mentioned civilian has been engaged as Stenotypist against establishment vacancy w.e.f. 24‑2‑1976 (FN). His pay fixed at Rs.200.00 p.m. in the National Scale of Pay of Rs.200‑12‑260‑EB‑15 355‑EB‑15‑425 w.e.f. the same date. Authorised to draw LCA @ of Rs.10.00 p.m. Dearness Allowance at flat rate of Rs.35.00 p.m DA @ of Rs.10 per cent of his basic pay, subject to minimum of Rs.50 p.m. and the maximum of Rs.150 and Additional Dearness Allowance at flat rate of Rs.25.00 p.m. from the same date. 'Certified that the individual has been declared medically fit. His upper age limit is relaxed by the competent authority.' Authy:‑Air HQ/17104/3/ADP(Civ‑II) dated 24‑3‑76 and Base Commander Personal No. Name Designation M/2134 Mr. Bashir Hussain Stenotypist" Bokhari, It is evident from the above that the appellant was engaged (appointed) against the vacancy with effect from 24‑3‑1976 on terms and conditions specifically set out therein after relaxation of his upper age limit. This aspect of the case further gets support from the appellant's own application dated nil addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, in which he has stated that he got his last pay on 1‑3‑1970 and since then he has not been paid any salary till he was appointed by the PAY: Authorities at Chaklala in the same cadre on 24‑3‑1976. In the earlier round of litigation, to which reference has been made, the grievance of the appellant has been dealt with by their Lordships in the concluding para of the judgment dated 21‑1‑1978 as under:‑‑ "After hearing him in person we have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in this petition and that it deserves dismissal. He refused to obey the transfer order and did not work for the period for which he claims pay. He claims seniority over one Abdul Rehman but did not make him a party to his appeal before the Tribunal, besides he accepted a new appointment on 14‑5‑1975 while Abdul Rehman has been in service in the said grade since 1960." Such being the case there is no force in the contention of the appellant that his services were transferred from the Settlement Department to PAY. Chaklala and in‑ consequence his previous service in the Settlement Department be counted towards his pensionary benefit. Rest of his contentions have been rejected earlier as back as in the year 1978. We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./B‑221/S Appeal dismissed.