1. The appellant, an Assistant Accounts Officer, in the office of the Comptroller, North-West Frontier Peshawar, was "appointed as Deputy Comptroller-II in that office with effect from 5-8-1971 (afternoon) with pay in his own grade till the posting of a PA&AS Officer", vide Auditor General's Office Notification No. 1840-GB-II/25-71 dated 25-9-1972. He took over as Deputy Comptroller on 5- 8-1971 (after-noon) in pursuance of Auditor-General's Order No. 1553-54 GB-1/19-69-II dated 29-7- 1971 and Comptroller's Memo. No. Admn. 1-37/294 dated 18-8-1971, although the Notification was issued on 25-9-1972. The post of Deputy Controller was subsequently redesignated as Deputy Accountant General.
2. On appointment, the appellant claims to be entitled to pay of the post, in accordance with the provisions of F. R.
17. It is further claimed that the right to draw pay of the post held by the petitioner, derives support from the orders of the Government or Pakistan, Ministry of Finance Letter No. F. 4 (i)/70-Exp./IV/11th dated 17-2-1972 and the Supreme Court judgment (Postmaster General, Eastern Circle v. Muhammad Hashim (PLD 1978 SC 61). The Comptroller N.-W. F. P. Explained the factual position to respondent No. 1, regarding the petitioner's entitlement to pay of the post and the A.G.P.R. Even issued the pay slip, authorising full pay but the respondent declined to allow the drawal of full pay, in view of the condition inserted in the Notification, although he was duly approved for promotion in 1971 by the F. P. S. C. And again by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
3. Representations made to the President on 22-1-1973 and the Prime Minister on 11-7-1975 against the decision have remained undecided.
4. Hence the present appeal.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has been promoted formally to Grade-18 with effect from 22-4-1976.
6. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the appellant was appointed to the higher post in his own grade qua to paucity of P. A. & A. S. Officers and that this tentative arrangement was made in the exigencies of service. As the petitioner was not promoted to the higher past, and his fitness was not adjudged, he was not entitled to the pay of the post. it is further argued that the salary slip authorizing pay of the post was issued b-- the Accountant- General, Pakistan Revenues, through oversight and no right to pay of the higher post could be established thereby. Payment up to 17-2-1972 at the higher rate (claimed by the appellant), however, stands regularized in pursuance of Finance Division's O. M. No. F. 2 (6)/73-E-TV/825, dated 8-5-1973 and the amount drawn from 18-2-1972, onwards, requires to be recovered from the appellant.
7. The petitioner worked in the higher post during the following period :- (i)5-8-1971to28-9-1973.
8. (ii)7-2-1974to8-3-1974.
9. (iii)1-8-11974to4-10-1974.
10. (iv)22-1-1975to8-3-1975.
11. (v)19-5-1975to20-9-1975.
12. (vi)11-12-1975to21-4-1976.
13. From, 22-4-1976, onwards, he was promoted on a regular basis.
14. We have heard detailed arguments and perused the relevant departmental record.
15. We consider that the decision in the context of the present appeal would depend upon the interpretation and application of the policy decision of. The President and C. M. L. A. Contained in paragraph 2 of the Ministry of Finance Letter No. F. 4 (i)/70-Exp. IV/11 dated 17-2-1972. It is evident that treatment similar to the Officer mentioned in the "subject of the aforesaid letter was to be accorded to other officers appointed to higher posts without A their formal promotion to these posts. The decision, admittedly, has not been modified or revised.
16. The letter however contains an advice to the Auditor-General not to appoint to a higher post in future, any officer, without formal promotion to that post, in accordance with the formal rules and orders.
17. This advice of the Ministry not having been found to be conducive to efficiency and smooth administration, became the subject-matter of correspondence with the Ministry and the circumstances under which the appellant continued beyond 17-2-1972, the date of issue of the Ministry's letter were explained to the Ministry. (Auditor-General's letter d.o. Letter dated 1-1-1973 and Letter No. GB-11/27-72 dated 23-10-1973 refer).
18. Our attention was also invited to Finance Division's Letter No. F. 2(6)/73. Exp. IV/2044 dated 18-7- 1977. Under this letter, the Auditor-General was informed that `it has been held that appointments made without the approval of the Appointing Authority are invalid appointments and do not carry any title to pay.
19. Although, this may generally be correct, the policy decision taken to the letter dated 17-2-1972 remains unaffected and the case of the appellant is fully covered by the decision.
20. It was presumably, precisely for this reason, that the petitioner was allowed pay of the post held, up to 17-2-1971 the date of issue of the Ministry's aforesaid letter. This letter can by no means be interpreted to mean that future payments due on the same basis should be disallowed. Since the officer performed similar plenary duties with full responsibility pay of the post held for other periods cannot be disallowed. It was open to tire respondents to terminate or discontinue the arrangements. Once the arrangements were made and the officer appointed tax the post, the pay of the post authorized by the Ministry itself under their letter dated 8-5-1973, when theth arrangements still subsisted could not be limited to a period upto 17-2-1972 arid not thereafter. No justification exists for disallowing pay of the post held, particularly when President's decision continues to be applicable in the instant case.
21. WA therefore held that the appellant is entitled to pay of the post held for various periods and direct that he be paid accordingly.