Find a Lawyer

Case No. 788/43 of 1984, decided on 23rd June, 1985.

‑‑‑ Pay‑‑Fixation of‑‑Pay of teacher in Selection Grade fixed provisionally by Headmaster concerned‑‑Pay thus fixed subsequently scrutinised by District Accounts Officer and teacher found to have drawn over‑payment and pay reduced by one step in respective pay scale‑‑Re‑fixation of pay and recovery of over‑payment challenged before Service Tribunal‑‑ Tribunal reaching conclusion that pay correctly fixed by District Accounts Officer‑‑Tribunal in circumstances, declining interference and dismissing appeal‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.

Khalid Farooq Tiwana for Appellant.

Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

Muhammad Anwar Chouhan, S.V. Teacher, Government High School, Gujranwala has made this appeal to this Tribunal in which he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that respondents be directed to fix his pay at the stage of Rs.255 p.m. of the selection grade and the arrears of his pay since 1‑12‑1982 till onwards be given to the appellant according to the selection grade fixed at the rate of Rs.255 per month according to the rules.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as S.V. Teacher on 11‑6‑1954 at Government High School, Pindi Bhattian in the grade of Rs.60‑4‑100‑7‑140. Afterward he was awarded the grade of Rs.115‑5‑180/7‑215 w.e.f 1‑12‑1962 according to the notification, dated 27‑4‑1963. Then according to the notification, dated 11‑5‑1970, he was awarded the grade of Rs.164‑7‑185/8‑225‑10‑315 w.e.f. 1‑6‑1969 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 201, p.m. in the said scale. However, later on the appellant was awarded selection grade of Rs.225‑15‑300 20‑400 vide order dated 6‑6‑1975 of the Director of Education, Lahore Division, Lahore w.e.f. 1‑6‑1970. The pay of the appellant was fixed by the Headmaster, Government High School, Gujranwala as Rs.255/ p.m. w.e.f. 1‑6‑1970 and the appellant was paid arrears amounting to Rs.1407. However, when the service book was placed before the District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala (Pay Fixation Wing) for fixation of pay, this fixation was found incorrect. The appellant was found entitled to Rs.245 per month according to the Rules and was allowed Rs.240 plus Rs.5 personal pay, with next increment on 1‑6‑1971 raising the pay to Rs.255 P.M. Thus it was calculated that the appellant had been over‑paid as Rs.2,541. However, the stand of the appellant is that he is entitled for fixation of his pay at Rs.255 p.m. from 1‑6‑1970 in the selection grade as allowed by the Director of Education, Lahore Region, Lahore and the pay fixed at Rs.245 (Rs.240 x Rs.5 as personal pay per month) is not correct. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e. Mr. Khalid Farooq Tiwana, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents, on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala (Fixation Wing) has fixed the appellant's pay as Rs.240 p.m. step in the selection grade + Rs.5 as personal pay. There is no step of Rs.245 in the award of selection grade vide order No. 18521/SE, dated 6‑6‑1975 issued by the Director of Education, Lahore Region, Lahore thus the appellant has been deprived of the step of Rs.255 p.m. from 1‑6‑1970. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that fixation of pay of the appellant from 1‑6‑1970 at Rs.245 per month is not correct as he was entitled to Rs.255 p.m. from 1‑6‑1970, according to the rules. Hence the respondents be directed to pay him at Rs.255 p.m. from this date instead of Rs.245 p.m.

6. On the other hand the respondents have taken a stand that the pay of the appellant has been fixed according to the rules and the appellant is entitled to Rs.240 plus Rs.5 as personal pay, per month from 1‑6‑1970 and not Rs.255 p.m. as contended by the appellant/ appellant's counsel and thus the recovery ordered against the appellant is according to the rules, as he had drawn the over‑payment which was not admissible to him. They have relied on the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department Notification No. FD(SRI) 10‑7/70, dated 12th October, 1970 and rule 4.4.(a)(ii) of the Civil Services Rules, Punjab, Volume I, Part I.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties, have consulted the record of the case and also the rules on the subject, very carefully. I have also perused the service book of the appellant. The following entries have been made on the service book, regarding fixation of his pay:‑

"Certified that the entries in the service book has been carefully scrutinized under my supervision initial pay on 1‑6‑1970 in the scale of 171‑7‑185/8‑225/10‑275 fixed at Rs.245 per month with next increment on 1‑6‑1971."

(Sd.)

27‑11‑1974

Distt. Accounts Officer,

Gujranwala.

"Pay provisionally fixed at Rs.240 + Rs.5. personal pay with next increment on 1‑6‑1971 raising pay Rs.255 in the scale of Rs.225‑15‑300‑20‑400 as S.V. Selection Grade awarded by the D.E. LHR order No. 18521/SE, dated 6‑6‑1975 w.e.f. 1‑6‑1970.

(Sd.)

28‑12‑1971

Headmaster,

Government High School

Gujranwala. "

As S.V. Selection Grade‑‑Certified that the entries in the service book have been carefully scrutinized under my supervision initial pay on 1‑6‑1970 in the scale of (225‑15‑300‑20‑400) is fixed at Rs.240 Rs. 5 personal pay with next increment of Rs.255 on 1‑6‑1971.

(Sd.)

16‑9‑1984.

Distt. Accounts Officer,

Gujranwala".

All these entries and even the perusal of the rules, make it clear that the appellant is entitled for the pay of Rs:240 plus Rs.5 personal pay i.e., Rs.245 per month on 1‑6‑1970, with next increment on 1‑6‑1971, raising his pay to Rs.255 per month in the selection scale of Rs.225‑15 300‑20‑400. Thus, the contention of the appellant /appellant's counsel that the appellant is entitled for the pay of Rs.255 per month on 1‑6‑1970, instead of Rs.245 per month is not correct and is not admissible under the rules.

7. The result of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There are no orders as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.

A.E

Appeal dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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