MUHAMMAD JAVED ASHRAF HUSSAIN, MEMBER--This is an appeal under Section 4 read with Section 2 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 against the impugned order of Central Directorate of National Savings, Islamabad F. No 6(3)Admn-II/94, dated 16.11.2004 whereby according to the appellant her juniors have been allowed move-over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 to her exclusion. The appellant filed a departmental representation dated 8.11.2004 which remained filed a departmental representation dated 8.11.2004 which remained un responded after the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days whereafter this appeal dated 8.3.2005 has been filed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant joined the (sic) 14,12.1974. She was promoted to BPS-14 in the year 1978 and to BPS-16 w.e.f. 1.12.1993 and she was granted selection grade (BPS-17) w.e.f. 13.6.1995. The respondent's Organization granted move- over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 to 58 National Savings Officers w.e.f. 1.12.2001 vide their letter dated 16.10.2004.-The appellant claims that out of the 58 National Savings Officers, 51 are junior to her as per the seniority list notified by the respondent's Organization vide their Memorandum No. F.1(13)Admn-II/90.Vol.II, dated 25.3.1999.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.10.2004, the appellant filed her departmental representation dated 8.11.2004 which having remained un responded after the lapse of the statutory period of 90 days, the appellant has preferred this appeal dated 8.3.2005 before this Tribunal.
3. The appellant who argued her case in person stated that stag was entitled to the grant of move- over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 with effect from 1.12.1998 on having reached the maximum of BPS-17 and having fulfilled all the criteria as per the move-over policy. She further stated that she had good record of service till the year 1998 and Therefore, she could not b denied the benefit of the move- over w.e.f. 1.12.1998.
4. The appellant further argued that she has been discriminated against as 51 National Savings Officers junior to her were granted move-over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 w.e.f. 1.12.2001 vide respondent Organization's memo, dated 16.10.004.
5. The appellant further argued that move-over cannot be withheld on the basis of unfounded charges or average reports in the ACRs and that even minor punishments cannot stand in the way of grant of move-over. The appellant stated that she had good record of service and as she had reached the maximum of BPS-17 on 1.12.1997, she was entitled to the grant of move-over w.e.f.
1.12.1998 with consequential back benefit.
6. The learned Standing Counsel argued that the case of move-over of the appellant was placed, before the relevant departmental promotion committee in 2001 which considered move-over for the period upto 1.12.1999 but the ,committee did not recommend the move-over to her due to unsatisfactory record of service. He stated that the appellant did not possess the requisite number of good reports during the years 1994 to 1998 as envisaged under Finance Division's O.M. No. F.1(82)R.3/85, dated 1.1.1986 read with O.M. No. R7(1)/Imp.I/90-II, dated 7.2.1991, The learned Standing Counsel further stated that the move-over committee which had met on 26.8.2004 had recommended the grant of move-over to 58 National Savings Officers on the basis of their record of service but did not recommend the grant of move-over to the appellant and upheld the earlier decision of the move-over committee which had considered her case in December, 2001 and had hot approved her move-over. The learned Standing 'Counsel stated that the case of move-over of the appellant was again placed before the move-over committee in 2006 and the said committee recommended the grant-of move-over to the appellant from BPS-17 to BPS-18 w.e.f. 1.12.2001 vide Finance Division U.O. No. F.1(28)-Admn-V/01-1321, dated 3.6.2006. The learned Standing Counsel concluded his arguments by stating that the appellant was granted move-over w.e.f. 1.12.2001 on the recommendation of the move-, over committee which met in 2006 under move-over policy duly notified by the Government of Pakistan. He, therefore, argued that the appeal being devoid of merit may be dismissed.
7. Heard the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
8. The appellant claims move-over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 w.e.f. 1.12.1998 on the basis of her having reached the maximum of BPS-17 on 1.12.1997. She has further claimed that she fulfilled all the requirements as per the more-over policy but has been denied her right of move- over and also has been discriminated against in that 51 National Savings Officers junior to her were allowed move- over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 on the recommendation of the move-over committee which met on 26.8.2004. Earlier the move-over committee which had met in the year 2001 had also not recommended the grant of move-over to the appellant on the basis of her record of service having been unsatisfactory.
9. The criteria for move-over as laid down in the move-over policy vide Finance Division's (Regulation Wing) OM No. F.7(1)Impl/90-Vol.II, dated 7.2.1991 with regard to move-over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 reads as follows:-- "(i) At least two good reports without any adverse entry during the last five years inclusive of the , year of move-over;
(ii) No penalty under the relevant rules was imposed on the officer during the last five years;
(iii) The officer has not reached his present pay scale by move-over."
10. It has further been clarified in the move-over policy memorandum that the move-over would be admissible from first December of the year following the year in which the officer has reached the maximum of his basic pay scale.
11. The synopsis of the annual confidential reports of the appellant for the period from 1992 to 2003 as made available by the respondent department reads as under:- ANALYSIS OF ANNU AL CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1992 TO 2003. #tbs Name:- #to Mrs. Sajida Abbas, NSO, Karachi.
Year L Overall Grading Quality and Output of Integrity Intellectual Moral Fitness for Promotion 1992 Average Average Average. Average Fit 1993 Average Average Average Average Fit 1994 Average Average Average Average Not yet fit 1995 Average Average Average Average Fit 1996 Average Average Average Average Fit 1997 Average Below average Average Average Not yet fit 1998 Good Average Good Good Fit 1999 Average Average Average Average Fit 2000 Good Good Good Good - Fit 2001 Good Good Good Good Fit 2002- Below average Not yet fit 1.1.2003 to 12.4.2003 Average Not yet fit % 13.4.2003 to 31.1.2003 Average Recently promoted as Asstt. Director
12. It would be seen that the move-over committee which met in 2001 had to see the record of the appellant for the previous five years i.e. From 1996 to 2000. The appellant had an adverse entry for the year 1997 in that she was graded as "not yet fit for promotion''. The appellant's case for the year- 2001 was, therefore, bit by the provisions of the move-over policy which say that during the previous five years there should be no adverse entry. As far as the claim of the appellant that she should be allowed move-over w.e.f. 1.1.1998 on the ground that she had reached the maximum of her scale on 1.12.1997 is concerned, it is noted that during the five years previous to 1998 i.e. From 1993 to 1997 the overall grading throughout has been average and therefore, the move-over committee rightly decided that she could not be granted move-over on the. Basis of her record upto 1998 in terms of the move-over policy which required at least two good reports. The move- over committee which met in 2004 also did not recommend the appellant for move-over as during the previous five years i.e. From 1999 to 2003 the appellant had two adverse entries for the years 2002 and 2003 which graded her "not yet fit for promotion" but decided to get the views of the Regulation -Wing whether move-over could be granted on the basis of two successive good ACR's for the period terminating on 1.12.2001. The move-over committee which had met in 2006 recommended the grant of move-over to the appellant w.e.f. 1.12.2001 on the basis of the advice of the Finance Division that as the appellant had earned two good reports for. The years 2000 and 2001 she was eligible for grant of move-over w.e.f. 1.12.2001.
13. It will be seen from the above that the case of move-over of the appellant was considered in three meetings of the move-over committee Viz: in 2001, 2004 and 2006. In the year 2001 the move- over committee did not recommend the case of move-over of the appellant as she had an adverse entry for the year 1997 i.e. During the period preceding five years from the date of the meeting of the move-over committee. Besides her claim for move-over w.e.f. 1.12.1998 could not have been recommended by the move-over committee on the basis that during the five years preceding 1997 the year in Which she had reached the maximum of her scale (BPS-17), all her reports were average and therefore she was hit by the provisions of the move-over policy that required at least two good reports. In the year 2006 the move-over committee which met on 24.4.2006 recommended her move-over w.e.f 1.12.2001 on the basis of the advice of the Regulation Wing of the Finance Division that the appellant was entitled to move-over on the basis of two good reports which she had earned during the year 2000 and 2001. This was apparently on the presumption that had the DPC met immediately after 1.12.2001, the appellant would be entitled to move-over on the basis of her having earned two good ACR's for the years 2000 and 2001. We are, therefore, of the view that the respondent-organization took decision within the framework of the move-over policy and the advice of the Regulation Wing of Finance Division in granting her move- over w.e.f 1.12.2001 and not from 1.12.1998.
14. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
15. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters under rule 21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.