1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S.M. ISHAQ, (MEMBER).‑‑‑It is the case of the appellant that while serving as Senior Engineer, Wapda, he was entitled to move‑over from B‑18 to B‑19 on 1‑12‑1984 but he was wrongly granted the benefits of move‑over with effect from 1‑12‑1988. 2. The facts, in brief, are that while the appellant was posted as XEN: Transmission Lines Construction Division, Hyderabad, the Authority noticed that he had committed several irregularities of serious nature and consequently a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment was imposed upon him vide order dated 18‑4‑1983. The move‑over from BPS‑18 to BPS‑19 was due to the appellant with effect from 1‑12‑1984 but owing to the imposition of the said penalty he was granted move‑over from 1‑12‑1988. The appellant's case is that he is entitled to move‑over with effect from 1‑12‑1984 and as such the same be granted to him from that date. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents resisting the appeal submitted that the appellant had comb fitted certain irregularities and thus a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment was imposed upon him vide order dated 18‑4‑1983 and it was in these circumstances that he was not eligible for move‑over with effect from 1‑12‑1984. He submitted that according to the criteria laid down for move‑over, a Wapda employee becomes eligible for move‑over only if no penalty has been imposed upon him during the last five years, starting from the date the move‑over is due. In support of his submissions the learned counsel relied inter alia, on para 4(iii) of the Guidelines for considering the cases of move‑over which reads as under:‑‑ "No penalty under the relevant rules was imposed on him during the last five years." In terms of above guidelines the learned counsel submitted that the appellant was required to earn his five ACRs, including that of the year of move‑over, free from any adverse entry, and that no penalty should have been imposed upon him during the last five years but the said penalty was imposed upon him on 18‑4‑1983 and as such he was not eligible for move‑over before 1‑12‑1988. The Respondent‑Authority, was, thus, justified in disallowing move‑over to him with effect from 1‑12‑1984. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent‑Authority and have also perused the record. It appears from the record that the appellant was charge‑sheeted on, account of committing certain irregularities and consequently a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment was imposed upon him. The Guidelines for considering the cases of move‑over clearly provide that an employee of the Wapda must fulfil the requisite conditions of possessing the required length of service and that neither any adverse entry in the ACRs should have been recorded nor any penalty imposed upon him during the last five years. In the instant case, no doubt, the appellant was found guilty and the said penalty was imposed upon him on 18‑4‑1983. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the grant of move‑over with effect from 1‑12‑1984. The record shows that as soon as the appellant earned consecutive five years' reports free from adverse remarks or without penalty the Authority allowed him move‑over from 1‑12‑1988. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the cases of Tajamal Hussain v. I: G. of Police, Punjab, Lahore 1985 PLC (C.S.) 845 and Nazir Ahmed v. DIG of Police, Faisalabad and others 1986 PLC (C.S.) 228 but these are not applicable to the present case. In the instant case, the impediment involved is that the aforesaid Guidelines clearly provide that "move‑over" would be granted to an employee of WAPDA only if no penalty is imposed upon him during the last five years. The learned counsel has also referred us to the case of Muhammad Anwar v. Secretary, Establishment Division PLD 1992 SC 144 but this case too is distinguishable as the move‑over was refused on the ground that out of the last five years, including the year of move‑over, the appellant in that case tad earned two "Good" and three "Average" reports. The Honourable Supreme Court had, however, granted move‑over on the ground that earning of generally "Average" reports is no impediment in granting move‑over. In the present case the move‑over, was not refused on the basis of average reports but because of penalty which too was imposed on account of the irregularities committed by the appellant. In our view, therefore, the Respondent Authority was justified in granting move‑over to the appellant from BPS‑18 to BPS‑19 with effect from 1‑12‑1988 instead of 1‑12‑1984, as claimed by the appellant, and we see no reason to interfere with the order. 5. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./892/Sr.F?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.