1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ANSAR ABBAS NAQVI Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman |
| Parties | ANSAR ABBAS NAQVI Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ANSAR ABBAS NAQVI Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Latif for Appellant.
- A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.4‑‑Revision of Pay Scales, Punjab Government Employees, 1983‑ Order NO.AO(E&T)‑1(2)/82‑S.A.III, dated 17‑7‑1985‑‑Appointment of civil servant in NPS.10 as stenographer‑‑Subsequent enhancement of status and pay scale of such employees to NPS.15‑‑Civil servant was denied benefit of NPS.15 on the ground that NPS.15 was given to incumbents who were drawing pay in Revised NPS.10 prior to 1‑7‑1983 and such civil servant having not been appointed on that date could not have benefit of same‑‑Other civil servants of that category having been allowed NPS.15 with effect from specified date vide circular dated 27‑12‑1987, appellant civil servant, held, could not be denied benefit thereof‑‑Apart from such circular, civil servant would be entitled to NPS.15 in pursuance of order dated 17‑7‑1985, whereby civil servant and others of that category were allowed NPS.15 and were also confirmed‑‑Civil servant's appeal was accepted with direction that he would be entitled to claim benefits of NPS.15 from the date when he was confirmed by order of the Authority.
Judgment & Decree
(ii) Secondly, it is argued that if there was any doubt that was clarified by the order dated 17‑7‑1985 which not only allowed Grade‑15 to the appellant but also confirmed the appellant with effect from 1‑6‑1985. (iii) On the other hand the learned counsel has resisted the appeal and argued that according to the Pay Revision Rules the Stenographers in NPS‑8 and 10 were to be fixed in BPS‑
12. It is further argued that memo. dated 27‑12‑1987 is irrelevant and not applicable in the appellant's case,
5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of both sides and before proceeding any further, I would like to refer the relevant portion of the Pay Revision Rules as well as the Order dated 17‑7‑1985, the same read as under: ‑ (i) Letter No.FD.PC.2‑1/83 dated 25‑8‑1983 issued by Finance Department. Stenotypist /Junior Scale Steno graphers Grade‑II in NPS‑8 and Stenographer/Junior Scale Steno grapher Grade‑I in NPS‑10 grantedBPS‑12 with effect from 1‑7‑1983. (ii) Letter No.FD‑PC‑14‑38/ 78(P), dated 8‑4‑1985 NPS‑10 issued by Finance Deptt. Junior Scale Stenographers in of Secretariat as well as Non‑Secretariat granted BPS‑15 with effect from 8‑4‑1985 as personal to them. (iii) Letter No.FD‑PC‑13‑38/78 PT‑I, issued by Finance Department. Junior Scale Stenographers in of Secretariat as well as Non‑Secretariat granted BPS‑15with effect from 8‑4‑1985 as personal to them. (iv) Order No.A.O.(E&T)‑1(2)/82 S.A.III, dated 17‑7‑1985 issued by Excise& Taxation Department Converted three temporary posts of Stenographers in NPS‑15 of Divisional Headquarters of Gujran wala, Faisalabad and D.G.Khan Divisions into permanent with effect from 1‑6‑1985.
6. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appointment of the appellant was made in NPS‑10, therefore, according to Pay Revision Rules his pay was to be fixed in BS‑12 as is clear from columns No.3 and 4 of the Rules. It is further argued that NPS‑15 was given to the incumbents, who were drawing pay in Revised NPS‑10 prior to 1‑7‑1983. The circular dated 27‑12‑1987 brought only change of the date from which it was made effective i.e. 1‑7‑1983 instead of 8‑4‑1985. It is argued that since appellant had not even been appointed on 1‑7‑1983, therefore, he cannot have the benefit of the same and BS‑15 was given as personal to the Stenographers appointed prior to 1‑7‑1983 in revised NPS‑10 The argument of the learned District Attorney is clearly misconceived as other Stenographers have been allowed BPS‑15 w.e.f. 1‑7‑1983 vide circular dated 27th December, 1987, therefore, the appellant is entitled to this scale.
7. Even if this circular is ignored still the appellant is entitled B to BPS‑15 in pursuance of order dated 17‑7‑1985 according to which appellant and others were allowed Grade‑15 and were also confirmed, The relevant portion has already been reproduced. This order is effective from 1‑6‑1985, therefore, the natural consequence thereof will be that the salary of the appellant will automatically be fixed in Grade 15 w.e.f. 1‑6‑1985. This will be on the strength of order dated 17‑7‑1985 and not on account of the Pay Revision Rules, 1983 or circulars dated 8‑4‑1985 and 27‑12‑1987 through which the Stenographers in service on 1‑7‑1983 have been allowed BPS‑15 as personal while the appellant and others appointed thereafter have been allowed BS‑15 through order dated 17‑7‑1985.
8. The next question which arises for determination is that what scale the appellant is entitled for the period from 5‑9‑1983 to 31‑5‑1985. I am of the considered view that since the existing scales have been I scrapped and the respondent unmindful of the fact that NPS‑10 is no longer in force committed a mistake while making the appointment of the appellant in NPS‑10.
9. It seems that he was not mindful of the enforcement of the new scales. The appointment of the appellant, therefore, should have to be treated in BS‑12 straightaway. The appellant is entitled to BPS‑12 for this period and from 1‑6‑1985 onward BPS‑
15. It is needless to mention that as per order of Governor of the Punjab the appellant stands confirmed w.e.f. 1‑6‑1985 in BPS‑15, therefore, his increments, seniority etc. shall be governed by the same.
10. The result is that I accept this appeal, set aside the order of the respondent and declare the appellant entitled to the benefit of BPS‑12 from 5‑9‑1983 to 31‑5‑1985 and BPS‑15 from 1‑6‑1985 the date when he was confirmed by the order of the Governor. The appeal is allowed with costs. A.A. /178/Sr.P Appeal accepted.