1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AFTAB AHMAD (MEMBER).‑-‑The appellant Muhammad Sadiq retired from Government service in 1985 on superannuation. Much after his retirement in November, 1995 Office Order No. 230/95 was issued by his parent Department of Economic Affairs Division ante‑dating his promotion as Assistant Incharge from 17‑12‑1976 to 9‑8‑1973 and that of Superintendent from 17‑9‑1984 to 17‑12‑1976. As a result of this antedation, the pay of the official was re-fixed and the benefit of re-fixation was also allowed for the purpose of recalculation of pension. In para. 4 of office order, however, it was mentioned that no arrears on account of ante‑dated seniority/promotion is permissible to the official. This gave the appellant cause of action and after exhausting the departmental remedy, he has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal requesting for grant of back benefits for the period. of his pro forma promotion as Assistant Incharge and Superintendent.

2. The appellant arguing the case himself reiterated his pleadings and added that one of his colleague Mr. Bashir Ahmad who in similar circumstances had been granted ante‑dated promotion, was directed to pay consequential arrears by the Tribunal as per its judgment dated 17‑12‑1986.

3. The case ‑of the department was defended by Mr. laved Aziz Sandhu, Standing Counsel assisted by M/s. Abdul Majeed, Section Officer and Muhammad Ikram, AEA of Ministry of Finance. While admitting that the case of the appellant was similar to that of Bashir Ahmad who was allowed arrears of pay for the ante‑dated promotion, it was submitted that the appellant was refused these benefits as per advice of the Law and Justice and Finance Divisions. It was further submitted that as the appellant had not performed the duty physically against the post, he was not entitled to the payment of arrears under F.R. 17.

4. We have examined the record. It appears from the comments filed by the Economic Affairs Division that the claim of the appellant for promotion as Assistant Incharge and as Superintendent with effect from 9‑8‑1973 and 17‑12‑1976 was examined in the Economic Affairs and Finance Divisions on the interference/direction of Prime Minister's Secretariat and his due rights were acknowledged by office order dated 7‑11‑1995 meaning thereby that the appellant was entitled to these promotions at the respective dates but was not granted for reasons at least not disclosed to the Tribunal. The appellant thus shall be deemed to have been prevented for no fault of his from holding senior posts and cannot be deprived of arrears under the garb of F.R.

17. F.R. 17, we were informed at the close of arguments had since been amended which' "provided" that the President may, if ~satisfied that a civil servant who was A entitled to be promoted from a particular date was, for no fault of his own, wrongfully prevented from rendering service to the Federation in the higher post, direct that such civil servant shall be paid the arrears of pay and allowances of such higher post through proforma promotion or up gradation arising from the ante‑dated fixation of his seniority". Therefore even under the rule as amended the appellant is entitled to the arrears of pay for the ante‑dated seniority/promotion as he was deprived to hold the posts for no fault of his. Ordered accordingly. Parties be informed. H. B. T./72/Sr.F Order accordingly