1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Dates of hearing : 300` January, 1984. ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER)‑Facts of the case are, that the appellant, while holding the appointment of Security Inspector (N. P. S. 7), Tarbela Dam, was made to undergo a medical check‑up to assess as to whether he could perform the arduous duties of Security Inspector since he was advanced in years and was considered to be physically weak. As a result of medical examination by a medical officer, the services of the appellant were terminated vide Office Order No. 2881, dated 25th November, 1979. The appellant preferred an appeal against the impugned termination on 10th April, .1980. He was referred for a second medical checkup. This time, it was a medical board that examined the appellant. The report of the medical board dated 11th February, 1980 (consisting of three doctors) certified that the appellant was fit to perform his duties normally and that there was no evidence of any illness. As a result of the report of the medical board, the appellant was re‑instated into service on 12th January, 1981 vide Office Order No. 93 and the order of termination, dated 25th November, 1979 was withdrawn. However, it was not considered appropriate to keep him in the security staff due to his weak physique. He was, therefore, transferred to the appointment of Inspector Housing, a job which was considered less demanding. In addition, the period from 25th November, 1979 to l1th January, 1981, when he remained jobless, was treated as leave due. The Office Order No. 409, dated 4th March, 1981, which was issued in continua tion of Office Order No. 93, dated 12th January, 1981, is reproduced as under : the pay of Mr. Khushal Khan, Inspector Housing, is hereby protected/fixed at Rs. 340, Rs. 9 as P.P. to be absorbed in future increments in the R. N. S. P. of Rs. 200‑1C‑350J12‑470 (No. 5) plus usual allowances as admissible "

3. The above Office Order was superseded by Office Order No. 1625, dated 21st October, 1982 which is reproduced "The pay of ...Inspector Housing is hereby protected/refixed (3a Rs. 362 plus Rs. I as P. P. to be absorbed in future increments in the R. N. P. S. of Re 290‑10‑350/12‑470‑14‑540 (No. 5) w. e. f. 12th January, 1981 (F. N.) plus usual allowances as admissible "

4. Not being satisfied with his appointment as Inspector Housing which was an N. P. S.‑5 post, and the latest fixation of his pay, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which is being disposed of by this order.

5. The appellant had been appointed as Inspector Security in N. P. S. 7 w. e. f. 4th August, 1977. At the relevant time, the N. P. S. 7 was 335‑14‑447/16‑

575. Had he continued without being terminated, his pay with increments on 1st December, 1980 would have been Rs.

377. Another increment fell due on 1st July, 1981 raising his pay to Rs.

391. Yet another increment was due w. e. f 1st December, 198.1 raising his pay to Rs.

405. On Ist December, 1982 his pay was to be fixed at Rs.

419. Then w. e. f. 1st July, 1983 the latest pay revision took place raising the pay of the (B‑7) at Rs. 698 and on 1st December, 1983 the next increment fell due bringing the pay to Rs.

721. His next increment would fall due on lst December, 1984 and when he retires in April, 1985, his pension would be worked out accordingly.

6. When we see the pay fixation of the appellant as at para. 3 above and compare it with that at para. 5, we find that he has been grossly underpaid. The stand of the respondent‑department that the pay of the appellant stands protected in N. P. S.‑7 (now B‑7) is, therefore, without substance. Not only that, from the perusal of the service book of the appellant, we discover that he is also being paid increments of B‑5 which is yet another injustice to which the appellant is being subjected.

7. Apart from what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no getting away from the fact that the service of the appellant was illegally terminated on 25th November, 1979 and when he was re‑appointed on l1th January, 1981, the period falling between these dates was treated as "leave due". As a result of this untenable action, creation period was treated as leave without pay adding to the financial hardship of the appellant.

8. Since the WAPDA have agreed, in principle, that (irrespective of the scale No. 5 of pay of Inspector Housing) the previous pay of the appellant which he was enjoying as Security Inspector in B‑7 stand protected, we order that the appellant would be deemed to be in Scale 7, which scale would be allowed him till his retirement, due in April, 1985. We, therefore, order that his pay, now calculated and fixed by us would paid him. Art pay slip would be issued to the appellant in N. S. P. ‑7, counting his service in this scale w. e. f. 4th August, 1977. C In addition, the leave without pay would be treated as leave with full pay. This would be done at the earliest and payment of arrears due to the appellant would also be made.

9. No order as to costs. Appeal accepted.