Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 326/485 of 1985, decided on 8th April, 1986.
Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977--
---
R.
10(i)(iii)--Fixation of pay in higher pay scale--Benefit of one pre-mature increment, held, would be admissible even if order does not specifically mention 'promotion' or even if appointment to higher pay scales was without assumption of higher duties--Officer appointed to perform duties of higher post but in his own pay and grade Service Tribunal on accepting appeal of such Officer, directing payment of pay of post with annual increment--Benefit of one premature increment disallowed on plea that it was not a case of regular promotion----Plea rejected and Officer, held, would be entitled to benefit of one pre-mature increment while fixation of pay in higher pay scale from date of assumption charge of higher post.
P L D 1958 Lah. 370 and P L D 1968 A J & K 64 ref.
Appellant in person.
Ghulam-us-Syeddain, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.
.---Sh. Amar Maftoon, Subject Specialist, Government Elementary Teachers Training College, Sargodha has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents No.l to 3 mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that respondents be directed to grant him one premature increment from 13-5-1981 instead of 20-9-1983 as the difference of pay on 13-5-1981 on his fixation of pay in N.P.S.-17 is less than an increment. His pay should be fixed at Rs.1,330 per month on 13-5-1981 instead of Rs.1270.
3. Brief facts of the case are that" the appellant came before this Tribunal in appeal No. 29/44 of 1983, which was decided on 30-11-1983. In pursuance of this judgment the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department implemented the judgment of the Tribunal and allowed the payment of annual increment in N.P.S.-17 for the period from 13-5-1981 to 19-9-1983 to the appellant. The appellant now filed the present appeal with the grievance that according to the rules he should have been allowed one premature increment on 13-5-1981 instead of 20-9-1983 as the difference of pay on 13-5-1981 on fixation of his pay in N.P.S.-17 was less than one increment. His pay should have been fixed at Rs.1,350 on 13-5-1981 instead of Rs.1,270 as per Rule 10(i)of Pay Revision Rules, 1977. Against the aforesaid order of fixation of his pay, he filed representation to the Secretary, Finance Government of the Punjab on 19-2-1985. After waiting for 90 days, the appellant filed this appeal within the next 30 days. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i.e. appellant who was present in person and Mr. Ghulam-us-Syeddain, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents.
5. It has been argued by the appellant that the Government has not implemented the judgment of this Tribunal properly and has not allowed his premature increment which is admissible to him under the Rules. He has relied upon the judgments of Lahore High Court, reported as P L D 1958 Lahore 370 and P L D 1968 Azad J & K 64 to support his plea that if a civil servant is appointed to a higher post in that particular line then it is a promotion. He has particularly relied upon Rule 10(i) of Pay Revision Rules, 1977, which provides if the difference of pay on fixation is less than or equal to one increment then the pay be fixed after allowing a premature increment. He has further submitted that the Rules do not make any distinction between regular or other types of promotion and has, therefore, contended that for the purpose of fixation of pay and increment appointment in own pay and scale also amounts to promotion. For this he has relied on Rule 4.4 & 4.13 of CSR Volume I Part I dealing with the fixation of pay of officiating Government Servants. He has finally relied upon Government instructions contained in Finance Departments' letter No. FD-PC-19-5/77 Pt. I, dated 19-12-1982. In this letter the Finance Department has itself clarified that Rule 10(i)(iii) covers promotion from lower scale to higher scale without assumption of higher duties. The appellant had laid emphasis on the provisions contained in this letter that it is immaterial if the word promotion is mentioned in the body of the order or not. The appellant has, therefore, contended that in his case, he has been working as a fulfledged subject Specialist and performing all the duties attached to the said post which are definitely higher and more arduous than the duties of the lower post of S.S.T. He has, therefore, claimed that in view of the provisions of the above Rules as well as instructions dated 19-12-1982, the objection of the District Accounts Officer that the original order dated 10-5-1981 did not specifically promote him and the appellant is not entitled to premature increment, is contrary to the specific provisions of the said Rules and Government instructions.
6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney and the respondents have contended that the Pay Revision Rules, 1977, do not allow premature increment in the appellant's appointment in his own pay and grade. The premature increment is allowed in case of regular promotion. Thus, the appellant is not entitled for the premature increment under the Rules. Thus his grievance is unfounded and uncalled for and fixation of his pay as made by the Respondent No.l is in accordance with the rules.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and we are inclined to accept the contention of the appellant. In the first instance we have already accepted the appeal No. 29/44 of 1983 of the appellant on 30-11-1883 and he was granted the relief by us in respect of increments in NPS-17. According to our view premature increment is also one of the increments in NPS 17 and as such respondents were not justified in disallowing premature increment to the appellant. B Accordingly we hold that the effect of our earlier judgment was that premature increment was also permissible to the appellant from 13-5-1981 i.e. the date on which he took over the charge of the higher post of Subject Specialist in NPS 17, in his own pay and grade.
8. We also accept the appellant's other two contentions that premature increment is permissible to him under Rule 10(1)(iii) of Pay Revision C Rules, 1977 which fully covers promotion from a lower scale to higher scale. The Finance Department have themselves clarified the position in their letter No. FD-PC-19-5/77 Pt. I, dated 14-12-1982 of the Punjab Finance Department, which is reproduced as below:---
"The provisions of Rule 10(1)(iii) cover promotion from a lower scale to higher scale, of course, without assumption of higher duties. It is immaterial if the word "promotion" is mentioned in the body of orders or not. Finance Department is, therefore, of the view that whenever higher pay scale is allowed under Rule 10(1)(iii) of course without assumption of higher duties, the pay on grant of the higher scale shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10(1)(i) of the Pay Revision Rules, 1977.
The letter is quite clear to the effect that a civil servant is entitled to the benefit of fixation of pay by way of one premature increment even if in the order of his appointment to higher scale a mention of word "promotion" is mentioned or not and secondly even if such appointment is without assumption of higher duties. The appellant's case is fully covered under these instructions /clarification because his order dated 10-5-1981 did not mention the word of "promotion" but entrusted him the higher responsibilities and duties as the post of Subject Specialist was higher than the post of S.S.T. Therefore, this letter knocks the very bottom out of the objection of the respondents that since the order dated 10-5-1981 did not bestow upon him regular promotion, he is not entitled to fixation of pay by allowing him one premature increment.
9. The result of the above analysis of the case is that we accept the appeal and direct the respondents to grant the appellant one premature increment from 13-5-1981 instead of 20-9-1983 in NPS 17, fixing his pay at Rs.1,330 per month on 13-5-1981 instead of Rs.1270 per month.
There are no orders as costs.
A.E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer