Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against the judgment dated 3-7-1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The petitioner, originally inducted into service in the Ministry of Defence drawing special pay, was subsequently transferred and permanently inducted into the Office Management Group as a Section Officer. Upon receiving move-over to BPS-20, he requested that his special pay of Rs. 330 per month be treated as part of his basic pay for pay fixation purposes, which was declined by the Ministry of Finance, culminating in the tribunal dismissing his appeal. The core legal question was whether special pay drawn by a civil servant is to be included in emoluments for the purpose of pay fixation and pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court observed that under substituted Rule 486 of the Civil Service Regulations, special pay of all types and nature is included in emoluments, and noted precedents where special pay was merged with basic pay upon promotion. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of the amended rule and past precedent.
- Does special pay drawn by a civil servant constitute part of emoluments for the purpose of pay fixation upon move-over or promotion?
- Whether substituted Rule 486 of the Civil Service Regulations includes special pay of all types and nature within the definition of emoluments?
- Can a civil servant claim inclusion of special pay into basic pay for pay fixation based on departmental precedent established by Presidential sanction in similar cases?
- Rule 486, Civil Service Regulations
- Rule 9(21)(a)(i), Fundamental Rules
ORDER
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-7-1994, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, against the petitioner.
2.Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner, originally joined service as Intelligence Officer with effect from 24-3-1965 in the Directorate General of I.S.I., Ministry of Defence. He was drawing Rs,330 as special pay. He was transferred and posted as Section Officer in Ministry of Finance on 27-5-1984. He continued to draw special pay of Rs,330 as Section Officer. On 18-2-1989 he was permanently inducted into Office Management Group as Section Officer. He became due for move-over in BPS-20 with effect from 1-12-1990 and was allowed so. On 11-6-1991 he made representation to the Secretary, Finance Division that his special pay of Rs,330 per month be treated as part of pay for the purpose of fixation of pay with effect from 1-12-1990. He was refused special pay for the purpose of fixation. He made representation to the Prime Minister. The Ministry of Finance, vide letter dated 20-11-1993 addressed to the AGPR, Islamabad, asked them to discontinue the admissibility of special pay to the petitioner from 23-11-1987. However, he again moved the Finance Division for the benefit of special pay to be included, which was declined; but on the contrary it was decided that the recovery of the over payment be made from the petitioner on account of special pay. However, the Ministry of Finance, later waived off recovery of over payment of special pay, as a special case. All his efforts failed. He, therefore, approached the Service Tribunal, which was declined to him on 3-7-1994.
3.We have heard Mr. Fazal Ellahi Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under old Rule 486-CSR special pay was not included in 'emoluments', but under the substituted rule the special pay of all types have been included in 'emoluments'. The Rule is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:--
"486. The terms 'emoluments' means the emoluments which the officer was receiving immediately before his retirement and shall include- (a) Pay as defined in FR 9 (21)(a)(i)
Note 1.--The President has been pleased to declare with reference to clause (h) of this Article that the emoluments or pay drawn by an officer who is transferred on foreign service in an autonomous or semi-autonomous body, in a post appointment to which is, by law, required to be made, and the salary of which is required to be fixed by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, shall be treated as emoluments or pay drawn in a post in Government service.
' Note 2.--If pension of a Government servant is calculated under the rules existing prior to the 7th January, 1977, Dearness Allowance mentioned at item (f) shall not form part of reckonable emoluments for pension."
5.Besides, in the case of Dr. Anisa Farooqui, her special pay was merged with her basic pay for the purpose of fixation of her pay on her promotion as Joint Chief Economist. The letter is reproduced as under:--
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
No, 10(1) Ad-II/PD/65 Islamabad, the 27th September, 1988.
To
The Accountant-General Pakistan Revenues, Islamabad.
Sub:-FIXATION OF PAY.
Sir,
I am directed to convey sanction of the President to treat the Special Pay of Rs,150 p.m. Drawn by Dr. Aneesa Farooqi as Joint Chief Economist, as part of her basic pay for purpose of fixation of her pay on promotion as Joint Chief Economist (BPS-21) in the Economist Group w,e,f. 25-5-1988. 2. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Division (Regulation Wing) vide their u/o. No,D.1122- R/88 dated 26-9-1988.
Your obedient servant,
(Sd.)
(Muhammad Sadiq)
Section Officer
Government of Pakistan
Copy forwarded to:
Finance Division (Regulation Wing) for endorsement to Audit. F.No,D.1138/R2/88
Government of Pakistan
Finance Division
(Regulation Wing)
'Islamabad, the 27th September, 1988.
Forwarded to A.G.P.R., Islamabad.
(Sd.)
(I.H. Rizvi),
Deputy Secretary (R.I.)
6.Keeping in view new Rule 486-SCR and sanction of the President in the case of Dr. Anisa Farooqui, the case of the petitioner also needs reconsideration. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.
Judges on this bench
- Mir Hazar Khan Khoso453 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments