ABDUL LATIF vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 3 others
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns a service matter where the appellant, a Test Inspector, was posted as a Foreman (Instrument) in his own pay scale, subject to completing mandatory training for promotion to the higher pay scale (NPS-16). The appellant performed the duties of the higher post but was denied the corresponding salary because the required training could not be provided by the employer, WAPDA. The core legal question was whether an employee who discharges the full duties and responsibilities of a higher post is entitled to the salary of that post, even if a prerequisite condition like training was not met due to reasons attributable to the employer. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to the higher salary. The Court affirmed the principle that when an officer is appointed to a higher post and discharges the full duties and responsibilities associated with that position, they are entitled to draw the presumptive pay of that post, regardless of administrative failures to provide required training.
- Is an employee entitled to the salary of a higher post if they discharge the full duties and responsibilities of that position?
- Does the failure of an employer to provide mandatory training preclude an employee from claiming the salary of a higher post they have already occupied and performed duties for?
- Is an employee entitled to presumptive pay when appointed to a higher post despite not fulfilling a prerequisite training condition caused by the employer's inability to provide such training?
1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 21-3- 1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,116(L) of 1989 filed by the appellant claiming regular pay scale (NPS-16) during the period when he was posted as Foreman (Instrument) at Steam Power Station, WAPDA, Faisalabad, dismissing the same.
2. ' The brief facts are that at the relevant time the appellant was working as Test Inspector in the above Steam Power Station. He was posted as Foreman (Instrument) in his own scale of pay of (Test Inspector) against a vacant post through office order dated 1-9-1981 subject to the condition that he would be promoted and regular pay scale of Foreman (NPS-16) would be allowed to him on his successful completion of six months training at WAPDA Training Centre. It appears that the appellant was ready to take the above training but WAPDA could not provide the same for the reason referred to in the Resident Engineer's letter dated 23-9-1982 addressed to the Chief Engineer (at page 40 of the paper book). The appellant through his application dated 1-2-1982 requested for grant of regular pay scale (NPS-16) of the post of foreman but his request was turned down on the ground that he had not completed the above training. Thereupon, he filed above Service Appeal which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. After that the appellant filed petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider the question as to whether the appellant was entitled to receive higher salary during the period when he worked on the higher post in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Shahpur Jan and 2 others (1986 SCM R 991), keeping in view the fact that the requisite training could not be obtained by the appellant for the reasons attributable to the respondents.
3. ' In support of the above appeal Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that since the appellant had worked and had discharged full duties and responsibilities of the higher post, he was entitled to the salary of the same. Reliance has been placed by him on the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Shahpur Jan and 2 others (1986 SCM R 991) (supra) wherein it has been held that an officer appointed to a higher post is called upon to discharge full duties and responsibilities of the higher post and, therefore, he will be entitled to draw presumptive pay inclusive of increments, The above principle has been followed in some of the subsequent judgments of this Court.
4. Mr. Anwar H. Mir, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to controvert the fact that factually the appellant had worked on a higher post, namely, Foreman (Instrument) at Steam Power Station, WAPDA. He is also unable to controvert that in view of the above judgment of this Court, the appellant was entitled to higher salary for the period during which he discharged the duties and function of the above post. Learned counsel for the respondents is also unable to point out if it was on account of any default on the part of the appellant that he could not receive the requisite training.
5. ' In this view of the matter, we allow this appeal and direct the respondents to pay the difference of salary for the period during which the appellant was posted as Foreman (Instrument) at Steam Power Station, WAPDA, Faisalabad.
Cited by 2 cases
- CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD BILAL and 7 2012 PLJ Lahore 149, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 112
- CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD BILAL and 7 others 2012 PLJ Lahore 149