Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 75 (K) of 1980, decided on 12th April, 1983.

‑‑S. 4 (1), proviso (a)‑Representation to Departmental authority -Addressed to incompetent authority within departmental hierarchy- Not to be treated as incompetent‑Should be forwarded by such authority to proper quarter‑Appropriate authority for representation President of Pakistan‑ Representation addressed to Secretary Establishment Division and Secret any concerned Ministry‑Conten tion that appeal before Service Tribunal was not entertainable for reason of addressing departmental representation not to appropriate authority, in circumstances, rejected.

‑‑Ss. 11 (1) (iii) & 17‑Ad hoc appointment made against higher post‑Such appointee, held, entitled to pay of higher post till same held‑Contention that such appointee continued to hold ad hoc appointment beyond certain specified period without sanction for its extension by competent authority hence was not entitled to pay of such post for such period‑Contention rejected‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4.

Manzoor Ali Khan for Appellant.

Niaz Ahmad ‑Chan for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 17th March, 1983.

.‑‑A directly recruited Section Officer, who was promoted to Grade‑18 on 2‑11‑1976 and, later appointed as Director, Maritime Safety, in the Director‑General of Ports and Shipping on ad hoc basis, with effect from 11‑7‑1977, the appellant was aggrieved by the order of the Director‑General, Ports and Shipping Joint Secretary, Ministry of Communications, dated 13‑5‑1980, which reads as under :‑

'.'Mr. S. A. Qarni, Section Officer, who has been looking after the work of D.M S. (T.A.D.C.) in addition to his own duties is relieved of the additional duties of the post of D.M.S. (T.A.D.C.) with immediate effect and is posted as Section Officer (E. C.).

(Sd.)

(L. Jackson)

Joint Secretary &

Director‑General, Ports

and Shipping."

2. In an informal note submitted to the Director‑General, Ports and Shipping, on 15‑5‑1980, the appellant protested both against his being relived of the post of Director, Maritime Safety and against being mentioned as looking after the work of that officer "in addition to his own duties", his case being that he was an ad hoc incumbent of the post and was not holding it "in addition to his own duties". In. reply to this representation, the Director‑General/Joint Secretary informed the appellant on 31‑5‑1980 that although his case had been referred to the Establishment Division for extension of his ad hoc appointment, the said Division had declined to approve the extension. In his reply, the Director‑General/Joint Secretary also stated that the appellant had been "allowed to look after the duties of the post of Director, Maritime Safety"; after the expiry of his ad hoc appointment to that post on 31‑12‑1981, implying thereby that he could not be treated as an ad hoc appointee after the said date.

3. Against the above order, the appellant made a departmental representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, praying for the release of his pay as Director, Maritime Safety beyond 31‑12‑1978, as well as for continuation in the same post. Having waited for the statutory period of 90 days without getting any reply, he came up in appeal before us on 9‑10‑1980. Meanwhile, by a Gazette notification, dated 30‑6‑1980, the appellant was formally notified as having been reverted to his original post of Section Officer with effect from 31‑12‑1978. The said notification is reproduced below :‑

"Ministry of Communications

(Ports & Shipping Wing)

Karachi, the 30th June, 1980.

"No. 15‑4/72 (Pt). Consequent upon the expiry of the term of his ad hoc appointment as Director, Maritime Safety (Grade‑19) in the Ports & Shipping Wing, on the afternoon of 31st December, 1978, Mr. S. A. Qarni has been reverted to the post of Section Officer (Grade‑18) with effect from the same date.

(Sd.)

(L. Jackson),

Joint Secretary & Director‑General

Ports & Shipping."

4. The objection of the appellant is two‑fold : (1) he was appointed as Director. Maritime Safety on "ad hoc basis" and not "in addition to his own duties ; (2) he was relieved of the appointment on 13‑5‑1980 and not on 31‑12‑1978. He thus claims payment of salary as Director, Maritime Safety (Grade‑19) for the period he worked in that capacity, that is, up to 13‑5‑1980 and not only up to 31‑12‑1978.

5. The contention of the respondents is that the appeal is incom petent, since it was filed without exhausting the departmental remedy within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of the impugned order. It is also their stand that the departmental appeal, which was filed belatedly, was also incompetent, since it was addressed to the Secretary, Establishment Division and the Secretary, Communications Division and not the President of Pakistan, who was the appropriate authority in his case.

6. From a perusal of the documents on record, we find, as already mentioned earlier, that the impugned order or decision was communicated to the appellant on 21‑5‑1980, whereafter he made his departmental representation on 12‑6‑1980 and, after waiting for the statutory period of 90 days, he came up in appeal before the Tribunal on 9‑10‑1980. The appeal is, therefore, fully within time.

7. As for the plea that the departmental appeal was incompetent, because it had not been made to the President of Pakistan, we do not find any force in it. The Tribunal has always held that a departmental appeal, if addressed to an incompetent authority within the departmental hierarchy, should be forwarded by that authority to the proper quarters and should not be treated as incompetent merely because it has not been addressed to the competent authority. We have, therefore, no hesitation in treating the departmental appeal as both competent and in time.

8. On the question of merit, the contention of the respondents is that the appellant's ad hoc appointment having not been extended by the competent authority beyond 3i‑12‑1978, he did not hold exclusive charge of the post of Director, Maritime Safety, after that date and, therefore, is not entitled to the pay and allowances of that post. We do not see any merit in this argument. The Memorandum, dated 13‑5‑1980, very unambiguously says that the appellant was relieved of the additional charge of the Director's office with immediate effect. Therefore, the claim that the appellant was relieved of this charge more than one year earlier, that is, on 31‑12‑1978, cannot be accepted. The Gazette notification of 30‑6‑1980, showing the officer as having been reverted, with retros pective effect, from the earlier date, is, therefore, of no value and has to be rejected as a useless document for the purpose of this appeal. We do not also accept the contention that since, after the expiry of the extended period of ad hoc appointment on 31‑12‑1978, there was no further extension, the ad hoc appointment will be treated as having terminated on that date. It is on record that the case for extension of the ad hoc appointment had been referred to the Establishment Division while the officer continued to work in the same post, pending the decision of that Division. There is nothing on record to indicate, and the respondents have been unable to produce any documents to show, that the appellant was reverted to the post of Section Officer on expiry of the extended period of appointment as Director. Nor have they adduced any evidence to establish that he worked as Director in addition to his own duties as Section Officer. More over, as is well‑known, posting on additional charge basis is, under the rules, not permissible for a period exceeding 6 months, whereas, in this case, it is claimed to have been made for over one year. We, therefore, reject the respondents stand in this behalf and accept the appellant's claim that he held exclusive charge of the post of Director, Maritime Safety (Grade‑19) till 13‑5‑1980 and is entitled to the pay and allowances of the said post till that date, as laid down in section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

9. The result is that the appeal is accepted and the respondents are directed to make payment of the amount still remaining unpaid out of the emoluments that accrued to the appellant as Director, Maritime Safety for the period 1‑1‑1979 to 13‑5‑1980.

10. No order as to costs.

11. Parties to be informed.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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