Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 128 (R) of 1980, decided on 25th October, 1982.

‑ S. 4‑Appeal before Tribunal‑‑Admitted on one ground‑Other ground‑Examination of‑Appeal on two counts (1) claim for promotion to higher grade in accordance with rules, and (2) claim for additional pay for holding additional charge of higher grade pay in accordance with policy‑Appeal against two separate decision of departmental authority ‑Appeal against decision not to promote appellant decided by Tribunal as time barred having been preferred after a lapse of more than three years after first representation to departmental authority‑Appeal admitted for having on second ground‑Plea that if appeal is admitted on one ground Tribunal was competent to examine other grounds also, in circumstances, rejected‑Claim for additional pay for period of additional charge admitted by respondent department. Appeal, in circumstances, disposed of accordingly by accepting same partially to extent of additional charge pay.

Khushdil Khan and 3 others v. The State P L D 1981 S C 582 distinguished.

M. S. Siddiqi for Appellant.

Shahid Hussain Jilani for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th June, 1982.

The appellant joined service of WAPDA on 10th October; 1959, as an Overseer. He was promoted as Junior Engineer on 14th December, 1964 in Grade 17. On 2nd Septem ber, 1976, WAPDA fixed 15% quota for promotion of Diploma holders, working as Junior Engineers, to the next higher grade i. e. Senior En gineers (Grade 18). A number of Diploma holders, working as Junior Engineers (Grade 17), were promoted as Senior Engineers (Grade 18). The appellant who was also a Diploma holder, was not promoted with this lot. He, therefore, made a representation on 15th January, 1977, to which no reply was received. He, therefore, followed this up with another representation on 24th March, 1978, which also slid not evoke any response. Thereafter, a further representation was made by him, addressed to the Chairman, WAPDA, on 2nd October, 1979. in which he again pressed his case for promotion as Senior Engineer (Grade 18). The Project Director, Watershed Management, under whom this officer was working, while forwarding the applications of the appellant for promotion, recommended his case on more than one occasion. Subse quently, when the officer made a further representation on 26th February, 1980, the Project Director, through his Memo. No. WMR/PF/1346, dated 27th, February, 1980, addressed to the General Manager (Dams) WAPDA, recommended that, since the officers' case for regular promotion was probably under considera tion and might take more time to decide, he could be given some financial benefits with effect from 23rd September, 1978, the date from which he was given additional charge as Senior Engineer, 'when he was required to work, in addition to his own duties as Junior En gineer in the place of one of the Senior Engineers placed under suspen sion, vide Dams Division (Water), Office Order No. 1BP/G.167/A/Vo.II/ 1939, dated 28th September, 1978. Not being favoured with a reply to any of the above representations, the Appellant came up in appeal before this Tribunal on 11th August, 1980.

2. The appeal was specifically on two issues :‑

(i) According to rules, he should have been promoted with effect from the date the officer just next below him was promoted against 15% quota reserved for Diploma holders ;

(ii) As he has been holding additional charge a Senior Engineer since 28th September, 1978, he was entitled to payment of an additional 12 % of his pay, in accordance with the Office Order No. OB/1 (9‑1) Admin/5031, dated 24125th March 1961.

3. So far as the first claim, namely, that the officer should have been promoted somewhere in 1976 or 1977, when his juniors were promoted, is concerned, the Tribunal, while admitting the present appeal on 4th September, 1980, specifically ruled this issue out of consideration, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Since he had been ignored in 1976/77 and had represented against it on 15^th January, 1977 but not received any reply to the representation, he should have filed his appeal within 120 days of the said represen tation, which he failed to and, therefore, put himself out of court so far as this question is concerned. This decision of the Tribunal still stands and, although it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that it could be considered by us on the ground that, according to Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Khurshid Khan and 3 others v. The State (PLD1981SC582), vide if an appeal is admitted on one ground, the appellate Court is competent to examine other grounds also, we are unable to accept the position that in this case the, question of promotion can also be taken up by us for consideration. For one thing, the Service Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal on the question of the suitability for promotion of a Government servant aggrieved in this behalf, except in cases where he has been left out of consideration without any ostensible justification. For another reason, in this particular case, the question of promotion is a separate issue altogether and not one of the grounds of appeal against a particular decision. The decision of the Authority not to promote him and their failure or refusal to pay him additional remuneration for holding additional charge are two separate decisions and one decision cannot be taken up for consideration on the ground that appeal against the other decision has been admitted Appeal against the decision not to promote the officer having been preferred after a lapse of more than three years and a half, after the first representation, it is hopelessly time barred and cannot even be entertained at this late stage. The original decision of the Tribunal on this point, as given in its order dated 4th November 1980, must, there fore, stand, there being no reasonable justification for reopening the issue.

4. As for the question of additional charge allowance of 12 % for the additional charge of the higher post, held by the Appellant with effect from 28th September, 1978, the learned counsel for the Respon dent Department stated before us, during the course of arguments, that the Department does not deny the claim. According to the stand ing rules, as laid down in the authority's‑ Memo., dated 24125th March, 1961, already cited above, the Appellant is entitled to the additional remuneration and, since the Department does not deny the claim, the appeal on this point is allowed and it is hereby ordered that the Appellant be paid 12 %. of his pay for the period he held the additional charge of Senior Engineer, in addition to his own duties as Junior Engineer.

5. With the above orders, the appeal is partially allowed.

6. No order as to costs.

7. Parties be informed.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.