' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).---Appellant Muhammad Farooq Siddiqui is a Deputy Director/Deputy Manager in the office of Chief Engineer (Designs) NTDC WAPDA House, Lahore. He had filed Appeal No,331(L)/1999 in this Tribunal in which he had claimed move-over w,e,f, 1-12-1988. The appeal was decided on 26-6-2003 by a Bench comprising Mr. Imtiaz Ali Khan and Mr. Moazzam Hayat, Members. The judgment was recorded by Mr. Moazzam Hayat, Member. A direction was issued to the Departmental Appellate Authority to decide the departmental appeal of the appellant on merits in accordance with law and by giving reasons. It appears from the perusal of the judgments that move-over had not been granted fo the appellant as penalty of withholding of increments for five years had been imposed upon him on 27-6-1991 and on account of that penalty he was granted move-over on 1-12-1996. In the present appeal the grievance of the appellant is that even under the direction issued by this Tribunal his claim for grant of move-over w,e,f, 1-12-1988 has not been decided.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had come on deputation to WAPDA and thereafter he was absorbed in WAPDA's service and since in the year 1987-88 was in the service of the Irrigation Department under the Government of the Punjab, therefore, it was not the responsibility of the WAPDA to grant him move-over w,e,f, 1-12-1988. It is also maintained that the appellant had been awarded a penalty of stoppage of five increments on 7-1-1987 and another penalty of reduction to initial stage of time scale for one year on 14-5-1995, therefore, he was not entitled to move-over w,e,f, 1-12-1988.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The appellant has been awarded penalty of removal from service vide order dated 27-6-1991.
This penalty was converted into penalty of reduction to initial stage of time scale for one year vide order dated 14-5-1995. It is stated that this penalty of reduction to initial stage was made effective from 27-6-1991 i,e, when the removal order was passed and on completion of five years starting from that date the appellant was granted move-over on 1-12-1996. We are afraid the penalty imposed upon the appellant on 27-6-1991 was not relevant as the claim of the appellant was for grant of move-over w,e,f, 1-12-1988. In the year 1988 the penalty imposed vide order dated 27-6- 1991 and revised by order dated 14-5-1995 was not in existence. Thus this penalty was no bar in considering the claim of the appellant for grant of move-over w,e,f, 1-12-1988. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that the appellant was not entitled to move-over as on 7-1-1987 also he has been awarded penalty of withholding of five increments. It is, however, conceded by him that this penalty was washed vide order dated 1-12-1998. If the penalty imposed upon the appellant vide order dated 7-1-1987 was set aside vide order dated 1-12-1998 then no penalty existed against the appellant which could create any hurdle in the grant of move-over to him w,e,f, 1-12-1988. In fact after the order dated 1-12-1998 was passed the respondents should have considered the claim of the appellant without any direction from any authority. A punishment which is set aside in appeal does not remain part of the service record. The respondents should, therefore, treat record of the appellant upto 1-12-1988 to be without any penalty.
5. The other argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that in the years 1987-88 the appellant was in the Irrigation Department under the Government of the Punjab, therefore, the respondents were under no legal obligation to grant move-over to him for the period he was not in their service. This argument is not in accordance with the rules. Once the appellant was absorbed in WAPDA his all claims relating to his previous service had to be finalized by the respondents. The finalization could be made in consultation with the Irrigation Department.
6. The objection with regard to limitation cannot be sustained. In appeals relating to pays and allowances an aggrieved Civil Servant has a continuing cause of action. For a continuing cause of action there is no fixed period of limitation. As such the appeal cannot be thrown away as time- barred.
7. For the above reasons the appeal is accepted. The respondents are directed to decide the claim of the appellant for grant of move-over w,e,f, 1-12-1988.
8. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.