SHAFIQTIE-UR-RCHMAN Versus PLAT

In this Constitutional petition the legality of order dated 10‑9‑1991 passed by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore through which the appeal filed by the petitioner against decision dated 16‑7‑1991 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1 through which his grievance petition was dismissed, has been called in question.

2. The facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition shortly stated are that the petitioner was the employee of respondent No. 3 and working as Steno‑Typist with A.O. On 24‑10‑1979 an order was passed by Senior Administrative Officer, Punjab Road Transport Board for posting/transfers of Stenographers/Steno‑Typists. The petitioner was transferred from A.O. to the office of Senior Technical Officer and since then, he is performing functions with the said officer and attached with him. The post of Steno‑Typist was in Grade‑8 whereas that of Stenographer in Grade‑10.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents when questioned did not dispute that there is no post of Steno‑Typist in the office of Senior Technical Officer whereas there is only one post of Stenographer in NPS‑10 in the said office. On transfer from A.O. to Senior Technical Officer the petitioner was performing the functions of the post of Stenographer in NPS‑10. He was not given the pay of the said post and it appears respondent No. 3 assumed that he being Steno Typist was merely given additional duty in the office of S.T.O. to perform the functions of Stenographer which was not a regular promotion from lower post to the higher post therefore he was not entitled to draw the pay of P.S.10 while performing the functions of Stenographer in the office of S.T.O. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner brought the matter before the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore through grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The' Punjab Labour Court after recording evidence rejected the said grievance petition through order dated 16‑7‑1991 by holding that he was not entitled to the pay of post of NPS‑10 while performing functions against the said post on his posting in the office of S.T.O. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed through order dated 10‑9‑1991 by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore on the main ground that order dated 24‑10‑1979 was a composite order regarding postings and transfers of Stenographer and Steno Typist as such petitioner since was Steno‑typist therefore his posting in the office of S.T.O. against the post of Stenographer did not entitle him to the pay of the said post. It appears that this view was taken by the Punjab, Labour Appellate Tribunal on the assumption that it was not a regular promotion from the lower post to the higher post and the petitioner was entitled to get the pay of the post of Steno‑Typist in NPS‑8 while performing functions against the post of NPS‑10 as Stenographer of S.T.O.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued with reference to an office order that there was only one permanent post of Stenographer in NPS‑10 for S.T.O; therefore the posting of the petitioner on transfer from the post of Steno‑Typist to the post of Stenographer with S.T.O. constituted promotion and the petitioner having already held that post right from 24‑10‑1979 uptil today shall be deemed to have been permanent workman within the meaning of Standing Order No. 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which provides that an workman having been posted against a post and continuing working for period of 90 days which post was existing for the last nine months and continued existing thereafter was to be deemed to be permanent workman a; such the petitioner had acquired a right to get the pay and other benefits of the post of Stenographer in NPS‑10, therefore the refusal to give to the petitioner the pay of the said post was illegal and amounts to denial of rights of the petitioner, granted by law.

5. The question whether transfer of the petitioner from the office of A.O. to the post of Stenographer with S.T.O. amounted to regular promotion in the facts and circumstances of this case pales into insignificance for it is firmly settled law that if a person is required to perform functions against a post to which even if he had not been regularly promoted was entitled to the pay and other benefits and privileges attached to the said post therefore it is not necessary to determine as to whether the posting of the petitioner with S.T.O. to perform functions of Stenographer constitutes promotion from lower post to higher post or not.

6. I am informed that in the year 1983 post in NPS‑8 was upgraded and placed in NPS‑12 whereas the post in NPS‑10 on up gradation was placed in NPS‑15. In the year 1988 the petitioner was given Selection Grade of NPS‑15 and since then he is getting pay of NPS‑15, therefore, so far as pay regarding period subsequent to 1988 is concerned there is no dispute. The petitioner is entitled to the pay and other monetary benefits attached to the post in NPS‑10 from the date of his posting with S.T.O. on 24‑10‑1979 up to the date when he was given Selection Grade in NPS‑15 in the year 1988.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was granted Special Pay of Rs.50 after his posting with S.T.O. therefore he was not entitled to any other benefit. An order dated 30‑5‑1982 has been placed on the record in support of this contention which shows that a special allowance of Rs.50 p.m. was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner due to his attachment with S.T.O., and it cannot be argued that this allowance is adjustable against the pay of post of NPS‑10. This allowance was admittedly granted to all the Stenographers attached to Secretary and Senior Technical Officer w.e.f. 1‑9‑1975 by virtue of order dated 20‑8‑1975 a copy of which has also been placed on the record. It is clear that this allowance was in addition to the emoluments of the post with S.T.O. of Stenographer that the incumbent of the said post was to draw.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents with reference to office orders dated 8‑5‑1983 and 14‑4‑1985 photo stat copies of which have been placed on record argued that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.600 in addition to his pay in NPS‑8 during his posting with S.T.O. which was much in excess of the pay of NPS‑10, therefore, to any relief: It is manifest from the said two orders that sanction was accorded for grant of an honorarium to the petitioner for performing additional duties with Senior Works Manager, Faisalabad Zone: as well as Works Manager (Head Quarters) P.R.T.B. w.e.f. 18‑9‑1980 in addition to performance of functions by him against the said post therefore this amount of Rs.600 is not deduct able from the pay of the post of NPS‑10 to which the petitioner was entitled.

9. For the foregoing reasons the orders dated 10‑9‑1991 passed by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and dated 16‑7‑1991 passed by Punjab Labour Court No. 1 are not sustainable. This writ petition is accepted. Both the said orders are hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the rights of the petitioner to get pay of NPS‑10 and other benefits while performing functions with S.T.O. w.e.f. 24‑10 1979 upto 30‑6‑1983 and thereafter from 1‑7‑1983 to pay of NPS‑15 from which date the post in NPS‑10 was upgraded to NPS‑15 and he shall be deemed to have performed functions against the said post in NPS‑15. The respondent No. 3 is directed to pay to the petitioner the difference of the amounts becoming due to him as a consequence of this judgment forthwith. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./S-287/L Petition accepted.