1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 31-8-1980 of the Central Service Tribunal, whereby an appeal filed by respondent No. I with regard to his terms and conditions of service was allowed.
2. The relevant facts as summarized by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the respondent (No. 1) was serving as Lecturer under the Govern--ment of Punjab and was drawing a pay of Rs.
3. 550 per mensem when in 1974 he applied through Public Service. Commission to serve as Lecturer under the Central Government. He was selected on 20-8-1974 against a leave vacancy and was placed in the grade of Rs. 450-50-1,000. Although his pay (under the Provincial Government, I.e. Rs.
4. 550 was protected by includ--ing two advance increments, he nevertheless felt aggrieved by the fixation of pay because he had been promised two increments over and above what he was drawing, namely, Rs. 550 per mensem. The Education Department did not concede his demand. On his representation, the Public Service Commission wrote to the Education Min1stry that the respondent according to them was entitled to two increments over and above Rs. 550 per mensem. It was a commitment to him at the time of induction in the Federal Service. The Education Min1stry in pursuance of the position taken by the Public Service Commission accorded the sanction for two increments, claimed by the respondent not only for him but also for several other persons in his category. They also, it is admitted sent the case to the President who it is stated agreed to the grant of the disputed increments. Accordingly, the decision was conveyed to the respondent on 13-8-1975 and also on 20-6-1975.
5. In the meanwhile, the A. G. P. R. Having objected to the grant of the disputed increments as illegal; the Min1stry of Finance agreed with the A. G. P. R. In its ruling, dated 3-6-1975. The respondent represented against the decision of the Min1stry of Finance but without any success. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was allowed on 31-8-1980, therefore, this petition for leave to appeal.
6. The Tribunal when summarising its findings on the controversy raised during the hearing of the appeal observed as follows :-- "(a) The Min1stry of Education had already issued a sanction on behalf of the President committing the payment of two advance increments over and above the protected/substantive pay of the appellant This position was also confirmed in a subsequent letter dated 20-1-1975. It was not therefore, correct to get out of that commitment after four years on advice of the Min1stry of Finance.
(b) It was clear from the recommendation of the Public Service Com--mission as well as from the application of Mr. Jamshed Hussain that the contemplation at the stage of interview with the Commission was the payment of two advance increments over and above Rs. 550 which was the substantive pay of the appellant.
(c) The view of the Min1stry of Finance (Regulation Wing) as expressed in paras. 4 and 5 of their note dated 20-2-1980, quoted above, is misconceived. The officer was employed under the Provincial Govern--ment, and he applied to the Federal Government through the Public Service Commission as a fresh recruit. As such, it is not correct to conclude that he was already in Government service for the purpose of either delegation of powers made to the Min1stry of Education or for the purpose of grant of advance increments. An employee of Government of the Punjab cannot be treated as a Government servant for the purpose of these rules, as he does not belong to the employing Government.
(d) It was been admitted in para. 5 of the Min1stry of Finance note dated 10-2-1980 that the officer was in receipt of Rs. 550 as his substantive pay in N. P. S. 17 on 7-10-1974, when be was offered an appointment by the Min1stry of Education of the Federal Govern--ment. It is, therefore, absurd to conclude that the amount of Rs. 550 included an element of two advance increments. The substantive pay of an officer is not expected to include any element of advance increments.
7. Accordingly, we do not agree with the Min1stry of Finance that the appellant was in Government service on the date of his employment under the Min1stry of Education, and thus the Min1stry of Education have exceeded the delegated powers. We also do not agree with the Min1stry of Finance that advance increments were not admissible to the appellant on the ground that he was already in Government service. As argued above, he was not in Government service for the purpose of these rules, because he was holding an appointment under the Provincial Government and not the Federal Government.
(e) We also do not subscribe to the view of the Min1stry of Finance and the learned State counsel that the precedent of Mr. M. A. Siddiqi, is not applicable and no discrimination has been made. The form used in the noting of the Min1stry of Finance, as repeated by the learned State counsel that Mr. Siddiqi was given two advance increments to save him from the monetary loss, does not convey and meaning within the framework of the applicable rules and orders. This term "to save from monetary loss" is used with reference to loss of substantive pay. According to the admitted position, Mr. Siddiqi was not holding any substantive post and the pay of Rs. 3,000 being drawn by him was in the capacity of officiating appoint--ment, though held by him on regular basis. He was, therefore, given two advance increments over and above his officiating pay and his case is slightly weaker than that of the appellant, who has requested for two advance increments over and above the substantive pay of Rs. 550 which he was drawing under the Government of the Punjab.
8. In the above circumstances, we accept the appeal of Mr. Jamshed Hussain, and order that his pay be fixed at Rs. 650 after allowing him two advance increments over and above his substantive pay of Rs.550, with effect from the date of his employment under the Min1stry of Education, with entitlement of future increments on due dates in the scale of Rs. 450-50-1,000, including other allowances, if any, as admissible under the rules."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments which were advanced before the Tribunal. His main contention is based on an office Memorandum of the Finance Division, dated 18- 5-1973. Item 16 of Annexure II to this Memorandum provides that the Min1stry/Division concerned has the delegated power under certain conditions to fix initial pay by grant of premature increments, in cases of first appointments under Govern--ment of persons "not already in Government Service".
10. Learned counsel argued that the expression "Government Service" as used in Item 16 would also include service under a Provincial Government. He has also sought support in this behalf from the definition of `Service of Pakistan' in Article 260 of the Constitution and `Government' in the relevant sections of the Central and Provincial General Clauses Acts, and also, expressed the view that the definitions of `Civil Servants' in the Central Civil Servants Act and `Government Servant' in the Government Conduct Rules which prima facie go against his contention, would not be attracted to the present case. Reference was also made by him to what he called various rulings, photo copies of which were produced by him during the hearing. They are O. M. No. 6/3/69-DRI dated 23-6-1969 Finance Division Letter No. F-9(1)-R4/65/4536-R4/66, dated 16-8-1966 ; Establishment Division U. O.
11. No. 4/1/74-D-III, dated 8-5-1975 ; Law Division U. O. No. 763/75-- Law dated 13-5-1975 ; and Min1stry of Information and Broadcasting O. M. No. 1(18),162; dated 10-7-1962.
12. In view of the commitment made to the respondent, by the Public Service Commission, the Min1stry of Education and ultimately by the President as also the formal sanction by the President of the disputed increments, we without making any comment on the merits of the question raised by the respondent do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The question raised, however, might be considered in some appropriate case where no commitment at such high level and for such a long period is involved.
13. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed.