2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AKBAR M. MEMON (MEMBER). ‑‑‑Appellant hereinabove has challenged the order, dated 19‑6‑1997, issued by Interior Division, Government of Pakistan, whereby the appellant was ignored move‑over from B‑18 to B‑19, against which he filed the departmental appeal which was declined vide O.M. dated 28‑12‑1999, hence this appeal.

2. The appellant, while working in the respondent‑Department in B‑17 since 20‑10‑1973 as Assistant Director, reached the maximum of B‑17 in 1983, subsequently he availed move‑over in B‑18 on 1‑12‑1984 vide order No.5/6/86‑Estt‑1, dated 30‑3‑1987. Thereafter the appellant reached maximum of B‑18 on 1‑12‑1987 and such certificate was issued by the AGP, Karachi on 26‑4‑1997, and since then he was drawing salary in B‑18 up to 7‑2‑1993. Considering seniority and fitness of the appellant, he was promoted on regular basis as Deputy Director (B‑18) on 8‑2‑1993 vide Ministry of Interior's Notification No.1714/88‑Estt‑1, dated 1‑2‑1993 and joined as Deputy Director on 8‑2‑1993, though he was due for promotion in the year 1988. On account of delay in promotion to B‑18, the appellant remained as Assistant Director from 1988 to 7‑2‑1993 till he was regularly promoted as Deputy Director. As a result of his regular promotion, as Deputy Director, in B‑18, with effect from 8‑2‑1993, the appellant was entitled to one premature increment, as per rules but his, pay remained unchanged and he was not allowed move‑over. to B‑19 on the same date as he was already drawing the maximum of B‑18 with effect from 1‑7‑1987 to 7‑2‑1993 in the capacity of Assistant Director which means he kept on drawing the maximum of B‑18 @ Rs.6,475 p.m. on account of no fault on his part. The appellant was then confirmed as Deputy Director (B‑18) with effect from 30‑3‑1993 vide Ministry of Interior's Notification No.5/30/1998 C‑II, dated 9‑12‑1998. Prior to this, he was granted move‑over vide No.52/20/1997/C‑II, dated 20‑10‑1998. From B‑18 to B‑19 with effect from 1‑12‑1999 mentioning the date of reaching maximum in B‑18 on 1‑12‑1993 although he had already reached the maximum on 1‑12‑1987, as such, the move‑over in B‑19 should have been given with effect from 8‑2‑1993 or least at on 1‑12‑1993. One Muhammad Arshad and the appellant both were promoted as Deputy Director on the same date i.e. on 1‑2‑1993 and both of them had reached maximum in B‑18 on the same date i.e. 1‑12‑1987 but on account of discrimination, Muhammad Arshad was given move‑over from B‑18 to B‑19 with effect from 1‑12‑1993 whereas the present appellant was given move‑over to B‑19 with effect from 1‑12‑1994, without assigning any reason. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the appellant then approached this Tribunal.

3. The appellant, while referring the documents, has contended that it is a clear case of discrimination as he, as well as respondent No.3, had reached the maximum of B‑18 on 1‑12‑1987, but respondent No. 3 was given move‑over from B‑18 to B‑19 from 1‑12‑1993 whereas the appellant was given move‑over in B‑19 from 1‑12‑1994. He has contended that she went on moving to respondent‑Department but nothing was done, as such, the present appeal has been filed which is liable to be allowed and his case merits consideration for move‑over on the same date on which respondent No. 3 was awarded move‑over to B‑19.

4. Mr. Niaz A. Khan, Standing Counsel for the respondents alongwith D.R. Mr. M. Aleemullah, Assistant Director, has argued that, on doubt, the respondents in their prawaise comments have given a different date of promotion of respondent No, 3 but considering the fact that when both appellant, as well as respondent No.3, reached maximum of B‑18‑ on 1‑12‑1987 and were promoted on 1‑2‑1993 as Deputy Director (B‑18) and considering the fact that the respondent No.3 was awarded move‑over with effect from 1‑12‑1993, ignoring the appellant who subsequently got move over in B‑19 on 1‑12‑1994, is itself a clear case of discrimination, as such, appeal merits consideration.

5. After hearing the appellants as well as the standing counsel the respondents, we have gone through the relevant papers and so also the pay slips produced by the appellant. There is no, denial of the fact that both, the appellants as well as respondent No.3, reached maximum of B‑18 on 1‑12‑1987 whereafter both of them were promoted as Deputy Director in B‑18 on one and the same date, i.e. vide Notification No. 17/4/1988‑Estt. I, dated 1‑2‑1993, as such, it .cannot be said that whatever has been stated by the respondents in their parawise, comments about the promotion of respondent No.3, earlier than that of the appellant, is correct. Since they reached the maximum on one and the same date and were promoted on 1‑2‑1993, grant of move‑over to respondent No.3 from 1‑12‑1993 ignoring the appellant speaks of discrimination, as such, we, while allowing the appeal, direct that the appellant be also given the ante‑dation of move‑over with effect from 1‑12‑1993 instead of 1‑12‑1994, as has been done in the case of respondent No.3. such monetary benefits be also allowed to the appellants after the needful is done.

6. In view of the above discussion, there will be no order as to costs. Parties concerned be informed accordingly through registered post. H.B.T./145/FST Appeal allowed.