MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, Through The Chairman_Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry Of Railways And Another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner, while holding Grade-16, was asked to perform the functions of an Assistant Personnel Officer in Grade-17 and claimed full pay of the higher post along with specific travelling allowances. The core legal question concerned whether an employee holding a current charge of a post is entitled to the full pay and perquisites of that higher post without being regularly promoted in the manner prescribed by the rules. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner was merely holding the current charge of the post on his own pay and was not regularly promoted, thus disentitling him to the claimed financial benefits. The Court ruled that no question of law of public importance arose, as the matter involved a question of fact determined by the Tribunal, while granting liberty to the petitioner to seek revival of the petition within sixty days of the disposal of his pending service appeal if the outcome thereof affected his entitlement.
- Is an employee holding the current charge of a higher post entitled to the full pay of that post?
- Does a service dispute regarding current charge versus regular promotion raise a question of law of public importance?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 2-8-1989 whereby his service appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was an officer of Grade-16 when he was called upon in July, 1988 to perform the functions of the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) in Grade-17. While so posted, he made the following claims which were denied to him:-
(i) Full pay of the post in Grade-17.
(ii) Entitlement of the A.C.C. Class for travelling.
He moved the Service Tribunal where it was found that he was not in fact prompted but was holding the current charge of the post and was not entitled to what he was demanding.
3. The petitioner who appeared in person, has not been able to place before us any document showing that he was promoted in the manner prescribed by the rules. On the contrary the Order relied upon by him shows that his transfer has taken place on his own pay. He was according to the Tribunal's finding, holding current charge of the post. He was not regularly promoted as such.
The petitioner stated before us that he has another service appeal pending before the Tribunal which is Appeal No.217(R)/1988 and relates to the nature of promotion and the entitlement thereon.
According to him, the decision of that Appeal should have preceded the one against which the Petition is now being considered.
4. Be that as it may, for the present we do not consider it to be a case where any question of law of public importance arises. On the contrary, a question of fact was involved on which a positive finding has been recorded by the Tribunal after obtaining the comments of the respondents and hearing the parties. However, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner, while refusing leave to appeal, we allow the petitioner that he may seek revival of this Petition, if he considers necessary, within sixty days of the disposal of the Service Appeal No.217(R)/11)88 filed by him before the Tribunal, if he considers that as a consequence; of such a decision his entitlement is strengthened or improved.
Cited by 1 case
- TARIQ MEHMOOD NIAZI vs NADEEM AFZAL and another 1996 PLD Lahore 429