' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- Appellant Abdul Rahman Qureshi was an Assistant Director in the office of Director General Audit, Revenue Receipts, Lahore. He is aggrieved by pay slip dated 5-11- 1998 by which his pay was reduced by one stage. His departmental appeal dated 12-11-1998 was followed by two reminders. The Additional Accountant-General vide his .Letter dated 26-3-1999 declined the request of the appellant for additional increment on grant of Selection Grade to him. It was stated by him in his letter that pay slip of the appellant was correctly revised according to the rules. The appellant retired from service on 9-2-1999. His grievance is that papers relating to his pension were not correctly prepared. The AGPR issued PPO dated 23-8-1999 by which pension and gratuity of the appellant was reduced and as a consequence thereof a revised pay slip was issued on 2-6-1999. A direction was issued for the recovery of overpayment made to the appellant.
Aggrieved by pay slip dated 2-6-1999 the appellant filed another departmental appeal on 15-10- 1999. His grievance was not resolved. He filed a petition before the Federal Ombudsman. Having failed to get relief from the Federal Ombudsman he filed the present appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 wherein he was prayed that:- "(i) The orders issued vide impugned Pay Slip No,GAI/AGPR/SOL/CD/483, dated 5-11-1998 (Annexure "I") and LPC No,GAI/AGPR/SOL/CD/543, dated 2-6-1999 (Annex-P) of respondent No,2 regarding reduction of appellant's pay w.e.f, 1-12-1993 may kindly be set aside, declared void ineffective and with out proper authority. Ii) The minimum benefits equal to one premature increment admissible on the occasion of selection grade and move-over in higher/extended scales originally granted to the appellant be restored. Iii) The pay already fixed and authorized by the respondent No,2 vide Pay Slip No,AGPR/SOL/GAI/CD/872, dated 18-12-1997 (Annexure "E") followed by his office Pay Slip No,GAI/AGPR/SOL/CD/465, dated 16-4-1998 (Annexure "F") may kindly be restored and differences of Pay and allowances illegally deducted from pensionary benefits be ordered to be paid to me through revised LPC. iv) The resultant financial pensionary benefits illegally withdrawn from the complainant may kindly be restored and ordered to be paid immediately with costs of the Appeal. v) Any further relief as considered suitable by the Honourable Court, be granted."
2. The appeal is resisted by all the respondents including the National Bank of Pakistan from where the appellant is getting his pension. It is stated by the respondents that appellant had reached the maximum of BPS-18 after getting move-over, therefore, on getting Selection Grade in BPS-18 he could not be granted any increment beyond the maximum to that scale.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The appellant was allowed move-over in BPS-18 w.e.f, 1-12-1988 vide order of the respondent No,1 dated 1-4-1989. He was allowed Selection Grade in BPS-18 w.e.f, 10-12-1992 vide order dated 22-8- 1996 passed by the respondent No,
1. Since the appellant had already reached the maximum of BPS-18, therefore, he could not be given any increment when he was granted Selection Grade.
When a Civil Servant reaches the maximum of a pay scale and gets promotion in the same scale he cannot get any increment. The grant of increment would mean crossing the maximum of that scale. The Accounts Officer who had issued the pay slip in favour of the appellant by which increment had been granted to the appellant beyond the maximum of BPS-18 had committed an irregularity. The respondents were, therefore, justified in rectifying this irregularity by issuing a revised pay slip to the appellant.
5. In the above circumstances the claim of the appellant that he should have been allowed one incremenj on getting Selection Grade was not warranted by law. His that claim is accordingly refused.
6. However, the amount already paid to him towards his pensionary benefits cannot be recovered from him on the- principle of locus poenitatiae. The mistake is issuing pay slip was committed by the respondents. This mistake should not have been committed by the respondents particularly when they are themselves the Controllers of Accounts of the Civil Servants of Pakistan. After retirement the appellant cannot be made to suffer because of the irregularity committed by an official of the respondents.
7. The result is that the appeal is accepted partly. The claim of the appellant for restoration of his pay slip in which he had been allowed advance increment is rejected. His second prayer that no recovery should be effected from him is allowed. This order would be effective only if payments have already been received by the appellant. The appellant shall be paid monthly pension on the basis of PPO dated 23-8-1999.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.