2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Fazal Illahi Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th September, 2002. SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.‑‑‑This appeal, with leave of Court, is filed against the majority judgment dated 1‑10‑1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the appellant, a WAPDA employee was refused the concession of House Rent Allowance in accordance with his Basic Pay Scale No.7 and instead was allowed in accordance with National Pay Scale No.5 drawn by his colleague meter readers. The dissenting Member was of the view that, according to WAPDA Rules, the house rent allowance is granted with relevance to the basic pay scale and not with relevance to the post that an employee holds.

2. Brief background of the case is that Malik Shaukat Hayat appellant was appointed as Meter Reader on 1‑8‑1980 in defunct Rawalpindi Electric Power Company (REPCO). As REPCO had not adopted the, national pay scales, the pay of appellant was fixed at Rs.335‑14‑447/16‑

575. The Company was taken over by WAPDA and their pay, fixation was finalized vide Notification No.F.O.B&P/37‑63/1018‑1168 dated 10‑2‑1982.

3. According to the aforesaid notification issued under section 18 of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, the pay of the employees of REPCO was fixed in the relevant national pay scales at the stage equivalent to the pay drawn before their transfer to WAPDA and if there be no such stage, at the stage next below, by treating the difference as personal pay, to be absorbed in future pay increases. Where the existing pay of an employee was more than the maximum of the relevant national pay scale, his pay was fixed at the maximum stage treating the difference between such stage and that already drawn while coming over to WAPDA, as personal pay.

4. As his pay in REPCO was Rs.335 which corresponded to Basic Pay Scale No.7 prevalent in WAPDA, he received his pay in BPS‑7 regardless of the fact that being Meter Reader, his colleagues in WAPDA had been drawing salary in BPS‑

5. This seems to be the basic pay scale of Meter Readers etc. in WAPDA. He has been drawing house rent allowance according to his pay in BPS‑7 but subsequently due to some audit objection it was fixed in accordance with the pay scale (No.5) drawn by Meter Readers. He made representation before the department with no positive results and thus, tiled an appeal before Service Tribunal where the majority view went against him.

5. The, only question to be decided in the instant appeal is, as to whether the house rent is drawn in accordance with the basic pay scale enjoyed by the employee or in accordance with the designation that he holds. It is admitted and also evident from relevant notification on record, that the house rent decidedly is sanctioned in accordance with the basic pay scale and not in accordance with the designation that an employee holds. This appears to be logical as well because the facility needs to be increased with relevance to the pay drawn. Normally, the house rent even to civil servants is granted against the minimum of pay scale that they serve in. For drawing house rent allowance no reference at all is given to the designation or to the post held by an employee of WAPDA. Keeping the very Pay and Allowance Rules of WAPDA in view, the minority view of the Service Tribunal seems to be more logical and reasonable.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent‑WAPDA argued that while fixing the pay of the appellant in WAPDA, he was placed in the nearest pay scale only in order to protest his salary already drawn, the difference to be taken as his personal pay. No doubt, the words "personal pay" have been mentioned in the original notification as well in the subsequent notification of 1983 yet it was not stated in clear and unambiguous terms that though the salary of the appellant will be paid equal to Pay Scale No.7 yet he would remain in National Pay Scale No.5 like his colleague Meter Readers. In the absence of such clarity, he would draw pay in BPS‑7 by, of course, remaining a Meter Reader. It is not something strange because the appellant was drawing pay in REPCO which was equivalent to the pay drawn in National Pay Scale No.7.

7. The question arises and it was also contended by learned counsel for WAPDA that if the concession of house rent allowance against BPS‑7 is allowed to the appellant, there would be a great loss to WAPDA because every Meter Reader would claim similar amount and secondly it would be discriminatory against other Meter Readers. We are afraid both reasons are not attracted in the present circumstances. No Meter Reader in BPS‑5 can claim house rent equivalent to the one granted to the employees of BPS‑

7. Obviously house rent allowance is referable to basic pay scale and thus, everyone would avail the same according to his basic pay scale and not at all designation or post. The question of discrimination is also not attracted because the pay scale of the appellant is higher and anyone lower to his scale cannot claim the house rent claimed by the higher scale. The only difference would be and is that the appellant despite being a Meter Reader is enjoying BPS‑7 while his colleagues are in BPS‑

5. This should not disturb either the department or the colleagues because the higher scale happened to be given to him due to his higher salary package brought along from REPCO.

8. In the circumstances, the appeal is accepted, the judgment announced on 1‑10‑1995 by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.209‑R of 1995 is set aside and it is hereby declared that the appellant admittedly drawing higher pay and scale is entitled to draw house rent allowance in accordance with his pay scale and not in accordance with his designation or post. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑245/S Appeal allowed: