ANSAR ABBAS NAQVI Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE
The relevant facts for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a Stenographer in NPS‑10 in the newly‑created office of Director, Excise and Taxation, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad. The appointment letter is dated 5‑9‑1983 at Annexure 'C'. The grievance of the appellant is that before his appointment, revision of pay scales‑scheme of pay scales and fringe benefits of the Punjab Government Employees, 1983‑‑was enforced through notification dated 25‑8‑1983 and was made effective from 1‑7‑1983. This was followed by circular dated 8‑4‑1985 through which it was clarified that the Stenographers who were in scale 10 shall be entitled to BPS‑15. There was yet another notification dated 27‑12‑1987 according to which the Stenographers in Grade‑I were, also given NPS‑15 as personal to them with effect from 1‑7‑1983 instead of 8‑4‑1985.
2. The Government issued order dated 17‑7‑1985 according to which three temporary posts of Stenographers in the newly‑created Divisional Headquarter of Gujranwala, Faisalabad and D.G. Khan were made permanent and they were allowed NPS‑15. Thereafter, the appellant submitted representation to the respondent for fixing his pay in the proper grade in accordance with the order of Government dated 17‑7‑1985. It was explained that on the date of his appointment Pay Revision Rules of 1983 had already come into force, therefore, his appointment should have been made in BPS‑15. This representation was recommended for favourable decision by the Director, E&T, Faisalabad, to the respondent. The respondent, however, did not find the same tenable and rejected the representation of the appellant. The decision was conveyed to the appellant through memo. attached as Annexure 'E'.
3. The appellant failing to get redress of, his grievance at the departmental level decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 13‑9‑1987 and notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent has contested the appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and gone through the paper book as well as relevant rules and notifications. The learned counsel for the appellant argued following points:
(i) Firstly, that since the Pay Revision Rules of 1983 have been notified on 25‑8‑1983 and made effective from 1‑7‑1983 while the appellant was appointed on 5‑9‑1983. The respondent, therefore, should have allowed the scale to the appellant out‑rightly in accordance with these Pay Revision Rules.
(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.