KHURSHEED AHMAD vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION
This petition for leave to appeal arises from disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, an Assistant Engineer (B-16) in the T&T Department, who was compulsorily retired in 1984. Although the Federal Service Tribunal later converted this retirement into a penalty of stopped increments, the petitioner sought a move-over to the next grade effective from 1984, rather than 1989. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a move-over during a period of forced retirement that was subsequently treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal's previous judgment, which had been acted upon by the government, was final and unchallenged. The Court reasoned that the petitioner could not earn increments during a break in service treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that move-over eligibility requires specific criteria, including consecutive favourable annual confidential reports, which could not be satisfied during the period the petitioner was not in active service. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision to deny the retrospective move-over.
- Can a civil servant claim increments or move-over benefits during a period of service treated as extraordinary leave without pay?
- Does a break in service due to compulsory retirement, even if later converted to a lesser penalty, preclude the earning of increments during that specific period?
- Is a move-over to a higher grade automatically granted upon reaching the maximum of a previous grade, or does it require compliance with specific service criteria like favourable annual confidential reports?
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---In consequence of disciplinary proceedings, petitioner as Assistant Engineer (B-16) in T&T Department was compulsorily retired with effect from 4-9-1984 but his appeal was allowed by Federal Service Tribunal converting retirement into stoppage of three increments vide judgment dated 27-10-1988. He had already reached maximum of B-16 on 1-12-1983 but could not get move-over on account of retirement. He was reinstated but without back benefits and the period he remained retired was declared to be considered as extraordinary leave without pay.
2. Petitioner approached the Tribunal again with grievance that move-over allowed to him from 1- 2-1989 after reinstatement was belated and he was entitled to move-over from 1-12-1984 as he had reached maximum in previous grade on 1-12-1983. Appeal of the petitioner is dismissed for valid reasons that previous judgment of the Tribunal was not challenged in the Supreme Court and has been acted upon by the Government by allowing move-over with clarification in the addendum. Of 9-2-1989 to the effect that on restoration the order shall not operate to postpone further increments.
3. Contentions raised before us on behalf of the petitioner are untenable. There was break in service when petitioner retired and even if that period is treated as extraordinary leave without pay the same would not entitle him to earn increments during that period. Secondly in Grade-16 petitioner had already reached maximum on 1-12-1983 before he was retired, hence question of increment would arise only when he gets move-over to the next grade. Thirdly for move-over there ' is formula to be followed including definite number of favourable consecutive annual confidential reports, which could not be possible during the period of extraordinary leave without pay.
4. There is no flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal requiring interference hence leave is refused and petition is dismissed as without merits.