THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN
This matter arises from eight petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondents' appeals regarding pay scales. The respondents, employed as Return Distributors in the Railways Department, were aggrieved by being placed in a lower pay scale in 1962 compared to record-lifters and record-suppliers, despite previously sharing the same scale. The core legal questions involved whether the communication rejecting the respondents' departmental representation constituted an appealable order and whether their appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the rejection letter constituted a final appealable order and that the limitation period properly ran from that date, making the Tribunal appeals timely. Furthermore, the Court held that a direction given by the Tribunal against the Federation applied to the Ministry of Finance which was a party to the proceedings. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
- Does the communication of the rejection of a departmental representation constitute an appealable order?
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is barred by limitation when filed within time from the final rejection of a representation?
- Whether a direction by the Service Tribunal against the Federation of Pakistan applies to the Ministry of Finance when it was a party to the appeal?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- These are eight petitions for special leave to appeal by the Federation of Pakistan through the Chairman, Pakistan Railways Board, from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal by which the appeals of the respondents were allowed and a direction was given to the Federation of Pakistan that they be placed in grade of Rs.100-4-140 in the consolidated scales of pay of 1962.
2. The respondents were employed as Return Distributors in the office of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Traffic Accounts Branch, of the Railways Department. Prior to 1949, they alongwith record- lifters and record-suppliers were placed in the scale of Rs.30-1-35. In 1949 when the pay scales were revised they were again placed in the same scale as was given to record-lifters and record- suppliers. In 1962 when scales of pay were again revised the respondents were placed in the scale of Rs.95-3-125 whereas the record-lifters and record---suppliers were given the scale of Rs.100-4-
140. The respondents represented against this discrimination. It led to protracted correspondence between the Railways Department and the Ministry of Finance in the Federal Government. The Railways Department supported the claim of the respondents but the Ministry of Finance declined to put the respondents at par in the matter of scales of pay with the record-lifters and record- suppliers. By a letter dated 26-5-1980 the Accounts Officer informed the respondents about the rejection of their representation. The respondents then filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal. The appeals were accepted.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the office memorandum by which the respondents were informed about the rejection of their representation was merely an intimation and not an order and as such it was not appeal-able; further, as the respondents were seeking a higher scale of pay then the one provided in the consolidated pay scales of 1962 their appeal was barred by limitation. In our view both these contentions are without any merit. Admittedly, the respondents were protesting against the pay scale which was given to them under the consolidated pay scale of 1962. They made a representation which was not decided finally till March, 1980. It was only on 26-5-1980 that they were informed about the rejection of their representation. It is difficult to accept that the rejection of representation did not constitute an order. It is not the case of the petitioner that if the terminus a quo for limitation is taken as 26-5-1980 the appeals before the Tribunal would still be barred by time. We would accordingly reject both the contentions.
4. It is then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal should have been directed against the Ministry of Finance and not against the Railways Department. This contention is entirely misconceived. The Ministry of Finance was a party to the appeals filed by the respondents. If therefore any direction was given by the Tribunal it applied to that Ministry as well.
5. No further point was taken in these petitioners. These are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.