AIJAZ AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through Ministry Of Defence
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner, appearing in person, contended that the Tribunal erroneously assumed his appointment as DCAO in Grade-18 was not a promotion, thereby denying him consequential financial benefits. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner produced an office order dated 2-7-1991 explicitly stating he was promoted as Dy. C.A.O. in BPS-18 vice a retiring officer. He argued that based on this promotion, he was entitled to pay fixation in accordance with official instructions dated 17-11-1991. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding the nature of the appointment and entitlement to pay fixation required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the petitioner's claim.
- Whether an appointment as DCAO in Grade-18 constitutes a promotion for the purpose of service benefits?
- Is a civil servant entitled to pay fixation in accordance with instructions dated 17-11-1991 upon promotion?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in dismissing a service appeal based on the assumption that an appointment was not a promotion?
ORDER
1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-7-1995 whereby his service appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner who is appearing in person contends that his appeal was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on an assumption that his appointment as DCAO in Grade-18 was not a promotion and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit which accrued to him as a result of such promotion.
3. The petitioner has produced before us a photostat copy of the office order dated 2-7-1991 whereby he was promoted as Dy. C.A.O. In BPS-18. This office order clearly states that the petitioner was promoted as Dy. C.A.O. (B-18 plus rupees 250 as special pay) in G.H.Q. Vice PC-1022 Mr. Shamiruddin, Dy. C.A.O. Retiring from service with effect from 4-7-1991. The petitioner, accordingly, contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted, he was entitled to the fixation of pay in accordance with instructions dated 17-11-1991. The above contention, inter alia, requires further examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.