IKHTIAR AHMED QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for higher pay corresponding to the post of Kanungo. The petitioner, a Patwari, contended that he had performed the duties of a Kanungo from December 1989 to June 1995 and was therefore entitled to the pay attached to that higher post. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the claim, reasoning that the relevant office order was merely a 'Posting/Transfer' order rather than a 'Promotion/Appointment' order, and thus did not entitle the petitioner to higher remuneration. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that this finding contradicted established precedent, specifically citing the principle that a civil servant who performs the functions of a higher-grade post is entitled to the pay attached to that post. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Tribunal's restrictive interpretation of the office order aligns with the legal principles previously enunciated by the Court regarding remuneration for duties performed in higher posts.
- Is a civil servant entitled to the pay of a higher post if they have discharged the functions of that post?
- Does a 'Posting/Transfer' order necessarily preclude a claim for higher pay if the duties of a higher post were actually performed?
- What is the legal effect of performing duties of a higher grade on a civil servant's entitlement to salary?
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 Girdawar 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 petition, Mr. Manzoor Ellahi Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court 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 Edubation 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,