1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. The appellant has impugned in this appeal the original order, dated 7th Mav.1994 which reads as under:‑‑ "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN NATIONAL TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS SECTOR H‑8/3, OLD SAIDPUR ROAD, ISLAMABAD No. NTRC‑15 (9)/94 Dated: 7th May, 1994 Subject: GROSS FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES IN THE CONSULTANCY WORK UNDERTAKEN BY NTRC Dear Mr. Swati, PMIC in consultation with the Finance Division have declared the funds of NTRC Consultancy Wing as public funds. NTRC has received instructions from the Ministry of Communication for an audit of consultancy accounts and return of transport and equipment by you. Kindly return the vehicles, air‑conditioners, furniture and other equipment to NTRC at the earliest so as to enable the Centre to furnish the compliance report to the Government. The Government audit party may please be provided access to the consultancy Bank accounts and records for audit purposes. With regard. Yours sincerely, (Sd.) MA. Farouk Acting Chief. Mr. M. Sadiq Swati; Ex‑Senior Chief, NTRC, H.No. 3, St. 50, F‑8/4, Islamabad.,‑ The above‑quoted D.O. letter when read as a whole indicates that the appellant has been asked to return the vehicles, air‑conditioners, furniture and other equipment as also the consultancy Bank accounts and other related records for the purpose of audit because he ought to have returned as he is no more incharge of the NTRC and this letter in no way amounts to terms and conditions as provided under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. There is also no appellate order as to bring the cause of action under the provisions of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and as such, this appeal as far as this relief is concerned is not competent. However, it was argued that the appellant was working as OSD since June 1993 but he has not been paid his due salary. To this, Mr. Muhammad Sher Khan, the Additional Secretary, Establishment Division, who was present and is made party in person stated at the bar that the appellant should prepare and submit his pay bills which will be forwarded to the AGPR, Islamabad for payment. To that extent, the Establishment Division is extending this relief to the appellant. It may also be observed that the appellant being a BPS‑21 officer, under the rules, is self drawing and Disbursing Officer and he could draw his salary by submitting his pay bills to the AGPR, but his contention is that the AGPR has returned the pay bills un passed, but the appellant has not been able to produce any documentary evidence in support of his contentions. Moreover, the AGPR, Islamabad has not been impleaded as party in this appeal. However, without going into the allegations and counter‑allegations as averred in the comments, we accept the statement of Mr. Muhammad Sher Khan, Additional Secretary, Establishment Division and the appellant is at liberty to submit his pay bills to the Establishment Division for further action at their end under the rules. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no case is made out for admission of the appeal as the learned counsel for the appellant has only pressed the appeal on two points, which we have already dealt with and disposed of. The appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./965/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.