Justice (R) Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Chairman.--The appellant joined respondents department as Stock Verifier (BS-40) in 1985 in the Internal Audit Division (IAD) of WAPDA. Stock Verifiers were employed either in the Office of General Manager (Inventory Control), WAPDA House Lahore or in the IAD WAPDA. Uptil. 04.09.1986 all the Stock Verifiers in both these offices were in BS-10. Vide Order No, S/DD(Rules)/07452/25/79883-80082, dated 04.09.1986, the Stock Verifiers in the Office of General Manager (Inventory Control) were placed in BS-14. These Stock Verifiers were further granted Selection Grade (BS-16) w,e,f, 01.12.1987.
2. The Stock Verifiers of the IAD, WAPDA were however, not granted this benefit simultaneously. The representative of Stock Verifiers, IAD entered into an Agreement with WAPDA whereby they were to be placed in BS-14 from the date approved by the Authority. Vide Order No, S.O.O. No, 631, dated 03.10.1998, BS-14 was granted w,e,f, 01.09.1998. This Agreement was also endorsed by the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 23.10.1998.
3. Meanwhile, one Muhammad Usma n Mufti, a Stock Verifier of IAD, WAPDA filed service Appeal No, 641(L)CS/2000 before Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore where he made the following prayer:-- "The respondents may kindly be directed to place the appellant in BS-16 w,e,f, 01.12.1987 with the payment of arrears and other service benefits."
4. The said appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 01.04.2004 passed by this Tribunal in the following terms:-- "9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the respective parties. It is an admitted fact that earlier Stock Verifiers in Inventory Control Division were placed in BPS-14 and the Stock Verifiers serving in the Internal Audit Division including the appellant were not placed in BPS-14. It is also admitted that subsequently the Stock Verifiers serving in the Internal Audit Division including the appellant were also granted BPS-14 as they were treated at par with the Stock Verifiers serving with the General Manager (I.C.) If for the grant of BPS-14 the appellant and his colleagues in Internal Audit Division were treated at par with the Stock Verifiers working in the Inventory Control Division then on the same principle they should have also been considered for grant of Selection Grade BPS-16 by fixing 33% quota of the total posts. Once the appellant was treated equal to Stock Verifiers serving in the Inventory Control Division he could not be given a different treatment afterwards. His claim should have been decided in the light of decision taken in favour of Stock Verifiers serving in the Inventory Control Division.
10. For the above reasons we accept the appeal and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant for grant of Selection Grade BPS-16 in the same manner in which it was granted to Stock Verifiers serving in the Office of General Manager (I.C). The entire process shall be completed within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is received in the office of the respondents."
It may be noted at this juncture that no specific relief for antedation of the Selection Grade w,e,f, 01.12.1987 or for the grant of arrears from the same date was granted to the appellant in the said judgment
5. In the present appeal, the basis of the claim of Absar Hussain Zahidi, appellant is the afore- stated judgment of this Tribunal. The grant of Selection Grade (BS-16) is being claimed from 01.12.1987 alongwith arrears from the same date. It is in this context that the appellant claims to be treated equally with Muhammad Usman Mufti and the refusal of the respondents to grant similar relief to him is regarded as an act of discrimination and violative of Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In order to support the claim of the appellant Mr. Haider Hussain, Advocate has placed reliance upon 1996 SCM R 1185 - Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs. Secretary, Establishment Division to urge that if Service Tribunal decides a point of law regarding the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the cases of the civil servants who litigated but also of other civil servants, the benefits of such a judgment is liable to be extended to other similarly placed persons.
6. Syed Shahid Hussain, Advocate for the respondents on the other hand contends that Stock Verifiers of IAD were placed in BS-14 w,e,f, 01.09.1998 as a result of an Agreement between the representative of Stock Verifiers of IAD and WAPDA which Agreement was also enforced by High Court as well as by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 01.04.2004. Selection Grade (BS-16) could have only been granted thereafter and could not lawfully precede the admitted date of grant of BS-14. According to him, later Selection Grade (BS-16) was given to 33% of the Stock Verifiers of IAD.
The sanction strength of Stock Verifiers of IAD as on 02.09.1998 was 40 out of which 13 Stock Verifiers were granted Selection Grade against the 33% quota. Further on creation of two vacancies, two others were granted the Selection Grade in the order of seniority. Mr. Muhammad Usman Mufti, was included in this category of 15 employees found entitled to the grant of Selection Grade. The appellant did not figure within this 33% quota and was thus not found entitled to the same.
Selection Grade was later discontinued w,e,f, 01.12.2001.
7. We have examined the respective contentions of the parties and perused the record.
8. It is established from the record that BS-14 was allowed to the Stock Verifiers of IAD in terms of Agreement dated 24.07.1996 executed between Pakistan Hydro Electric Central Labour Union through Mr. Majeed Anjum, Secretary and WAPDA. BS-14 was admissible from the date when the authority accorded its approval to the Agreement. This approval was given vide SOO No, 631, dated 03.10.1998 w,e,f, 01.09.1998. It was however, decided that no arrears will be allowed.
It may be necessary to recapitulate the circumstances leading up to the above Agreement.
A Petition No, 4A(284)/88-L) was filed by the Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union on account of unfair labour practice against the respondents for not granting BS-14 to the Stock Verifiers of IAD as given to their counterparts in the Office of General Manager (Inventory Control) w,e,f, 04.09.1986. This petition was allowed by the NIRC. WAPDA challenged the decision of NIRC in Writ Petition No, 1549/92 during the pendency of which the above referred Agreement dated 24.07.1996 was executed which was given effect to vide Notification dated 03.10.1998 w,e,f, 01.09.1998 without any arrears. The Writ Petition No, 1549/92 was disposed of in terms of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.10.1998. The grant of BS-14 w,e,f, 01.09.1998 was thus enforced by the parties even before the Hon'ble High Court.
9. Two facts thus stand established:-- One, that BS-14 was granted to Stock Verifiers such as the appellant w,e,f, 01.09.1998 through a specific agreement and; Two that no arrears were allowed.
Selection Grade (BS-16) could be allowed only after the actual grant of BS-14 and could not precede the event.
10.Even in the case of Mr. Muhammad Usman Mufti, BS-14 was granted to him w,e,f, 01.09.1998 and not from any previous date. Selection Grade (BS-16) was given to the said employee as he fell within the prescribed quota of 33% as per his seniority. The appellant herein has not controverted the assertion of the respondents that the appellant did not fall within the 33% quota. Mr. Muhammad Usman Mufti accepted the dates of his placement in BS-14 and subsequent grant of Selection Grade (BS-16) and did not agitate the alleged claim of arrears. He thus accepted the redressal of his grievance as per the judgment of this Tribunal dated 01.04.2004 passed upon his service appeal.
11.The present appellant cannot claim anything over and above the agreed date of grant of BS-14.
He shall be bound by the Agreement dated 24.07.1996 which was duly executed between the respondents and the Collective Bargaining Agent. In terms of Notification dated 03.10.1998 the appellant is even otherwise not entitled to any arrears. Selection Grade stands discontinued w,e,f, 01.12.2001. The appellant has not been able to make out any case of discrimination.
12.There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
13. Parties to bear their own costs and be informed accordingly.