Justice (R) Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Chairman.--The appeal is directed against the order dated 25.08.2004 whereby the request of the appellant for removal of anomaly in the fixation of the pay upon his promotion in BS-19 was refused and against the appellate order dated 06.08.2005 whereby his departmental representation was rejected. The appellant claims that his pay be fixed at a stage higher than the junior officer(s) who were promoted in BS-19 subsequent to the promotion of the appellant.
2. Facts as disclosed in the memo of appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Economic Investigator (BS-16) on 25.06.1976. He was promoted as Research Officer (BS-17) on 19.05.1979. The appellant was further promoted as Assistant Chief Planning in BS-18 on 25.04.1988. Having reached the maximum of BS-18, he was given move-over in BS-19 in the year 1992. The appellant subsequently reached the maximum of BS-19 (Rs, 11,600/-) of the 1994 pay scales. Thereafter he was formally promoted to BS-19 vide order dated 19.07.2001. He did not get one premature increment upon this promotion as he had already reached the maximum of his scale through move-over.
3. Pay scales were revised vide Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulations Wing) O.M.
No, F. 1(5) Imp/2001, dated 4th September, 2001 with effect from 01.12.2001. Upon such revision the pay of the appellant was fixed by addition of nine increments in the new pay scale (BS-19). The appellant prays for removal of anomaly in his pay fixation by fixing the same at a stage higher than the junior officer such as Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra who was promoted to BS-19 after the promotion of the appellant. To elaborate his point, it is contended that although the appellant was promoted to BS-19 on 19.07.2001 much before the promotion of Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra the pay of the appellant was fixed at Rs, 18,550/- in the revised scales while the pay of Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra was fixed at Rs, 18,665/- on 01.12.2001 upon the revision of the basic scales of pay.
4. The appellant places reliance upon O.M No, F. 2(1) R.I/95, dated 20.06.1995 issued by the Regulations Wing of the Ministry of Finance containing General Principles for Removal of Anomalies.
It is contended that after the removal of the anomaly in his case he should be brought at par with the officers in the same scale.
5. The respondents have resisted the appeal. It is contended that O.M. No, F. 2(1)R-I/95, dated 20.06.1995 is not applicable in the present case. Referring to Paras (i) & (iv) thereof, it is submitted that anomalies, if any, are liable to be removed if the same exist among the seniors and juniors in the same service group or cadre or line of promotion. According to the respondents the Planning and Development Division consists of two categories of officers i,e, Economists Group and Technical Cadre Officers. There is no formal group for the officers of the Technical Sections. The officers of these sections are defined as "ex-cadre". Their seniority is maintained in their own sections. It is urged that Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra was appointed directly to BS-18 on 19.05.1984 and was inducted in BS-18 almost four years earlier than the appellant who was, promoted to BS-18 on 25.04.1988.
6. It is argued that as separate seniority was maintained, the appellant was able to get promotion to BS-19 ahead of the said Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra as he belonged to a separate section/group.
This according to the respondents was reflective of the position that there was no combined seniority of the appellant with the said Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra. This being the case, no benefit could be derived from Para (i) or (iv) of the O.M dated 20.06.1995.
7. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. The basic features of the case are borne out from the record. It is correct that the appellant was promoted to BS-19 on 19.07.2001 while two other officers. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra and Mr. Gulzar Ahmed were promoted on 13.12.2003. It is also not denied that the pay fixed for the appellant was less than the pay fixation of the above mentioned two officers.
9. It is further noted that the Planning and Development Division consists of two categories of officers i,e, Economists Group and Technical Cadre Officers. All the Economists of this Division are included in the Economists Group. There does not exist any formal group for the officers of the Technical Sections. It is also established from the record that the seniority of the officers is being maintained in their own sections. While the appellant belongs to the Industries and Commerce (I&C) Section, Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra belongs to the Physical Planning and Housing (PP&H)
Section while Mr. Gulzar Ahmed belongs to the Economists Group. The seniority of the appellant and the other two officers is being maintained separately. The appellant was able to be promoted to BS-19 on 19.07.2001 in accordance with his seniority in his I&C section. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra was inducted in BS-18 on 19.05.1984 while the appellant was promoted to BS-18 on 25.04.1988. But despite this, as there was no combined seniority list of these officers he was promoted earlier as mentioned hereinbefore. It is in this background that O.M No, F. 2(1) R-I/95 dated 20.06.1995 has to be examined. For ready reference the said O.M is reproduced as under: "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN FINANCE DIVISION (REGULATIONS WING)
No, F. 2(1) R.I/95 Islamabad, the 20th June, 1995 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR REMOVAL OF ANOMALIES.
The undersigned is directed to state that the question of determining anomaly of junior government servants' pay . exceeding the pay of the senior has been under consideration with reference to the points raised by the Auditor General of Pakistan on the clarification issued under the Finance Division's Office Memorandum No, F. 1(34)-Imp/92-Vol.II dated 24.07.1994. In order to streamline the system it has been decided that anomalies in pay fixation should be established strictly on the basis of the following principles:--
(i) The senior and junior should be determined with reference to the date of promotion or appointment to the higher pay scale/post in the same service group or cadre, or line of promotion in the Ministry/Division/Department/Office where their seniority is being maintained.
(ii) Any personal benefit of the nature of increase in pay specifically granted to government servant/Government servants shall not be treated as a cause of anomaly for others.
(iii)Except for the cases of personal increase of pay, pointed out at (ii) above, the pay of the senior should not have been less than the pay of the junior before the revision/re-fixation of pay.
(iv)The anomaly should be resolved by re-fixing pay of the senior equal to that of the junior if there is equal stage in the pay scale drawn by the senior, and if there be no such stage, at the stage next above in his own pay scale".
10.Both under para (i) and (ii) thereof the senior and junior should be determined with reference to the date of promotion or appointment to the higher pay scale/post in the same service, group or cadre or line of promotion in the Ministry/Division/Department/Office where their seniority is being maintained.
11.As already noticed, the appellant and the two officers against whom he claims the removal of anomaly do not belong to the same service, group or cadre or line of promotion. Seniority lists are also maintained separately. In this view of the matter para (iv) shall come into play only when the precondition contained in para (i) of the O.M is fulfilled.
12.There is force in the submission of the respondents that the general principles for removal of anomalies as contained in O.M dated 20.06.1995 does not apply to the case of the appellant.
13.This is more so as the appellant has already derived benefit of promotion to BS-19 on 19.07.2001 earlier to the other officers on account of the fact that he was senior in his own section although admittedly he was promoted to BS-18 almost four years after Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Vohra. After having obtained the said advantage on the basis of sectional seniority, the appellant cannot turn around and claim overall seniority over the other officers referred to above.
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.
15. No order as costs.
16. Parties be informed.