IBRAHIM GUL and others vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary
The petitioners, serving as teachers in the Education Department of N.-W.F.P., challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal which dismissed their appeal regarding pay scale entitlement. The petitioners had been transferred to positions of Senior Instructor of Commerce (NPS-17) on their own pay and grade (NPS-14), with the explicit condition that they would not claim permanent absorption and would revert upon the arrival of Public Service Commission selectees. After serving for several years, the petitioners sought regularisation and the pay scale of the higher post (NPS-17). The Service Tribunal rejected their claim, noting the appointments were temporary, ex-cadre, and did not follow the prescribed procedure for BPS-17 appointments. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that the transfer and the accompanying remuneration conditions were lawful under Section 10 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court ruled that since the petitioners were not formally promoted or selected through the prescribed boards, they were not entitled to the higher pay scale, and their belated challenge to the terms of their transfer was impermissible.
- Can a civil servant claim the pay scale of a higher post when transferred to an ex-cadre position on their own pay and grade?
- Does Section 10 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act 1973 empower authorities to transfer civil servants with conditions regarding remuneration?
- Is a belated challenge to the terms of a transfer order permissible when the order was initially accepted without objection?
- Section 10, N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act 1973
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners serving in the Education Department of the N.-W.F.P. Seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 28-11-1987 whereby their service appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioners were serving as Teachers in N.P.S.-14 when in early 1981 and 1982. They were transferred and appointed as Senior Instructor of Commerce in NPS-17 at Government Agro Technical Teachers Training Centre, Peshawar on their own pay and grade. One of the conditions uniformally made applicable was that the officials will not claim any right of permanent absorption against this post and will be reverted to their own post on the arrival of the selectees of the Public Service Commission. None came to relieve them and they continued functioning as such. Though the petitioners were hit and aggrieved by that part of the transfer order which placed them in their own pay and grade, they did not represent against it till the year 1986 when on failure of their representation they approached the Tribunal claiming that denial of pay in NPS17 was not in accordance with law on the subject. The Tribunal rejected their claim observing as hereunder:- "In their transfer orders it was clearly mentioned that they will draw the same pay which they were drawing in the Schools wherefrom they were transferred. They were posted against posts of BPS-17 in their existing grade. It is, therefore, evident that they are borne on the cadre in their parent departments. Their present posting is against Ex-cadre posts and is purely on temporary basis. It cannot be construed as ad hoc appointment or on deputation. Hence, their claim for regularisation against BPS-17 is not tenable. There is prescribed procedure for appointment to BPS-17."
3. Qazi Atiq-ur-Rehman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that having been selected for a better appointment and having discharged their duties to the satisfaction of everyone, the petitioners could not be deprived of pay of the post.
4. Section 10 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act empowers the competent authority to transfer any civil servant to any post in the provincial Government or Federal Government, inside the country or outside, or to any statutory corporation. Such a transfer of the applicants/petitioners had taken place. The condition imposed on their remuneration was in accordance with law because they had not been formally promoted or otherwise selected through their prescribed selection Boards, nor had they then objected to it. Such a belated attempt to challenge an order which is in accord with law is not permissible. No question of law of public importance arises in this case. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused.