IKHTIAR AHMAD QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior, Islamabad And Others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for higher pay for the period he allegedly performed duties as a Kanungo while holding the substantive post of Patwari. The Tribunal had previously held that the office order in question was merely a transfer order rather than an appointment to a higher post, and thus did not entitle the petitioner to higher emoluments. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that this finding contradicted established jurisprudence, specifically citing the principle that a civil servant who performs the duties of a higher-grade post is entitled to the pay attached to that position. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the potential conflict with settled law, granted leave to appeal. The core legal question to be determined is whether the Tribunal’s interpretation of the office order aligns with the principle that civil servants are entitled to remuneration for higher-grade duties actually performed, as previously enunciated by the Supreme Court in similar service matters.
- Is a civil servant entitled to the pay attached to a higher-grade post if they have discharged the functions of that post?
- Does a transfer order that does not explicitly appoint an official to a higher post preclude a claim for higher pay for duties performed?
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 19-4-1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No. 488(R) of 1994, filed by the petitioner claiming the pay as Kanungo while he was acting as such during the period commencing from 17-12-1989 to June, 1995, declining the same for the following reasons:-- "A bare reading of the above-referred office order would show that it was only a "Posting/Transfer" order and not a "Production/Appointment/Order. By this order the appellant as Patwari was transferred from the office of Kanungo in the Main Office to the office of Field Girdawari Halqa Sihala. It does not in any way give the idea that the appellant was entrusted with the duties of Kanungo to claim the higher pay of the post. In this view of the matter, the appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition, Mr. Manzoor Ellahi Qureshi, learned A.S.C. For the petitioner, has contended that the above conclusion recorded by the Tribunal runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sh. Amar Maftoon v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education and another (1992 SCM R 1869), in which it has been held that a civil servant, who worked against a post of higher grade and discharged the functions of such post, was entitled to the pay attached to that post.
3. We are inclined to grant leave to consider, whether the view found favour with the Tribunal is in consonance with the law enunciated by this Court inter alia in the above report. Leave is, accordingly, granted.