' S. HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN (MEMBER).-This appeal involves a question of fixation of pay. The appellant, Lutfe Ali Khan, prays that the respondents be directed to allow him annual increments w. e. f. 18th July, 1964, together with the concerned service benefits, and that since there are no specific rules to govern his case, C. S. Rr.
4.7 and 4.9 be applied in order to decide the matter of his salary.
2. The appellant joined service as Assistant Research Officer (Extra-Assistant Ground Geologist) in the ground Water Development Organization of the Irrigation Department on 15th July, 1957. At present he is posted as Superintending Geologist (Director, Hydro-geology), Perspective Planning Division, WAPDA, Lahore. When he was appointed initially, his pay was fixed at Rs, 310 p. m. In the scale of Rs, 250-20450/25-600125-750. On 1st April, 1960 the G. W. D. Organization was transferred, alongwith the whole staff, to WAPDA. The notification making this transfer protected the pay and allowances of the concerned employees as they stood on 31st March, 1960. On 18th July, 1963 the appellant was promoted as Senior Geologist in Class I Senior Scale, as it was then known, i. e. Rs, 600-40--1,150. After one year, i. e. On 18th July, 1964 the appellant was allowed the annual increment but this was subsequently withdrawn on the plea that being a deputationist his case was under discussion, Meanwhile, the appellant had opted for the West Pakistan Civil Service (Pay Revision) Rules, 1964 under which he would get his annual increment in Class I(Senior Scale) only on completion of 7 years Class I service. The concession for the grant of first annual increment to deputationists under WAPDA was granted by WAPDA on 13th October, 1969 but to those deputationists only who were not promoted to the posts in their normal line of promotion in their parent department and for which no corresponding scale existed in the said department. Thus he was granted the first increment in the Senior Scale w. e. f. July, 1967 under the Government Pay Revision Rules and later , ante-dated to November, 1965 under the WAPDA Pay Revision Rules, whereas the appellant claims this increment from 18th July, 1964 when, according to him, he completed 7 years service.
3. The parties were heard and the various relevant files and documents were examined. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in 1969 the then Legal Adviser of WAPDA (Mr. J.
Ortcheson, retired Judge of the High Court) had opined that neither the Government Pay Revision Rules nor WAPDA's Pay Revision Rules were applicable to the appellant and had suggested that his case be decided in the light of rules 4.7 and 4.9 of the C. S. R. But the respondent organisation was not following that advice. On 20th May, 1967 the Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department, Punjab, wrote to the Chief Engineer, R & A Division, WAPDA that the appellant's case was governed by the Government Pay Revision Rules, 1964, and that according to rule 10 the appellant had completed 7 years service on 19th July, 1964 and as such was entitled to his next increment from that date. The important point in his case, occording to the learned counsel for the appellant, was that since his post was nat mentioned in the Schedule to the Pay Revision Rules, the condition about completing 7 years of Class I Service or 14 years of Class II service, in order to become entitled to the next increment in Senior Scale, was not applicable to him. His case would now be covered by C. S. R.
4.7 which deals with automatic grant of increment, and C. S. R.
4.9 which deals with time-scale to be counted on the basis of service. With this application of the C.
S. Rules, the appellant was entitled to annual increment w. e. f. 14th July, 1964 when his first increment became due.
4. The above stand was vehemently contested by the learned counsel for WAPDA. He submitted that actually the appellant was not a deputationist at all as had been averred in a letter by the Deputy Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department, according to whom the appellant was on ad hoc appointment in the Government and, therefore, had no lien. The advice of the Legal Adviser was based on the presumption that the appellant was a deputationist. The Legal Adviser had observed that the personnel of the G.W.D. Organization had been transferred to WAPDA from 1st April, 1960 untill the said project was complete, and since by implication they were to revert to the Irrigation & Power Department when the project was completed they were deputationists. This reasoning of the Legal Adviser was fallacious, since the G. W. D. Organization dealt with ground water which was a permanent cyclic phenomenon and could not be described as a project to be completed in a limited period, and it did not help the appellant in becoming a deptutationist. Although the appellant had no case for ante-dating his increment from July, 1967 to November, 1965, WAPDA gave him this facility as a measure of assistance under its own Pay Revision Rules which would normally not apply to him. WAPDA brushed aid e the distinction of non-gazetted service, Class II Service and Class I Service and, treating the appellant as a Class I Officer, allowed him the increment from a previous date. More than that the appellant was not entitled to.
5. Having heard the parties and having gone over the various rules and the documents filed by the two sides we shall first give or finding on the fact whether the appellant continues to be a civil servant or has become an employee of WAPDA. On 27th January, 1980 a miscellaneous application was filed before us praying that the monthly recovery of over payment as house rent being effected from the appellant on the basis of his being a WAPDA employee, be stayed till the decision of this appeal. We had stayed the recovery. The appellant filed his appeal with this Tribunal on the certain assumption that he was a civil servant. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing on the ground, inter alla, that the appeal was a civil servant. The notification issued by the Secretary, Irrigation & Power, Government of West Pakistan, on 1st April, 1960 though not specifically stating that the persons serving under the G.W.D. Organization would be on deputation with WAPDA, made it clear that they would continue to remain basically servants of the Government. As the hearing of this case has proceeded before us there has been more than sufficient evidence to show that the cause of action has arisen out of the appellant's being a civil servant and the attendant dispute about his consequent adjustment in WAPDA. There is, therefore, no doubt that, in the light of the Government notification of 1st April, 1960, the appellant continues to be a civil servant. In fairness to the respondent, i. e. WAPDA, we may add that WAPDA does not deny that the appellant is a civil servant, as is clear from its parawise comments on the grounds of appeal. We are giving this finding on the instance of the appellant in respect of his miscellaneous application.
6. Now to the matter relating to the fixation of the appellant's pay. WAPDA's Legal Adviser opined that rules 9 and 10 of the Government Pay Revision Rules do not apply to the appellant because, as a Class II Officer, he was not promoted to a Class I post in a service having a Junior Class I Scale and a Senior Class I Scale, nor was he promoted from Class II to Class I Senior Scale. Secretary, Irrigation & Power in his letter of 20th May, 1967 was of the view that the appellant's case was covered by rule 10 of the Government Pay Revision Rules, while WAPDA is of the considered opinion that it is rule 9 which applies to the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant contends that none of these Rules are applicable to him, therefore his case should bet decided in the light of C. S. R.
4.7 and C. S. R.
4.9. We have given serious thought to these various varying points of view and are inclined to go along with the view adopted by WAPDA. Rule 9 of the Government Pa Revision Rules reads as under :- "When a Class II Officer is promoted to a Class I post in a service having a Junior Class I and Senior Class I scale his pay shall be fixed in the Junior scale at the next higher stage above his pay in class II and the pay in the senior scale shall be allowed either according to the pay stage corresponding to the pay stage in the junior scale, or by taking into account half of the period of Class II service and adding full service rendered by hint in Class I and thereafter allowing pay appropriate to the total years of service so arrived at, -whichever is more benftlicial,"
' We are confirmed in this view by the fact that at the time when the appellant was promoted as Senior Geologist by WAPDA the parent Department of the appellant had a Junior Class I Service for which rule 9 was made. Whereas rule 10 was to deal with cases of promotion in the service which had no Junior Class I Service. During the arguments the learned counsel for the appellant laid repeated stress on the advice tendered by WAPDA's legal adviser that being a deputationist the appellant was entitled to benefit from C. S. R.
4.7 and C. S. R.
4.9. We do not find sufficient evidence to confirm the Legal Adviser's view that the appellant is a deputationist from the Government to WAPDA. The transfer of the G. W. D.
0. From Government to WAPDA was intended to place the technical responsibility for ground water work with theC Water & Power Development Authority, and the transfer of personnel was incidental to this decision ; that is to say that the transfer of personnel was not the prime consideration, and was not dictated by any motive of sending them on deputation from one authority to another. That is why no deputation allowance, etc. Was envisaged for the personnel, and the notification of 1st April, 1960 was by way of protection of their rights and their conditions of service as Government servants. Moreover, since the post of Senior Geologist, to which WAPDA chose to promote the appellant, was not mentioned in the Schedule to the Government Pay Revision Rules the latter rules could not be applicable to him, while the WAPDA Pay Revision Rules did not cover the appellant for obvious reasons. Faced with this dilemma, and having promoted the appellant to a post existing in one of its own Cadres, WAPDA decided to resolve the difficulty by applying its own Pay Revision Rules to the appellant, particularly when the Accountant-General West Pakistan advised WAPDA that as there were no rules the Authority may fix the appellant's pay under its own rules. WAPDA, by its office order dated 13th October, 1969, proceeded to do so accordingly-, although it would have finalised the matter by applying rule 9 of the Government Pay Revision Rules to the appellant in which case the appellant could have earned his first increment from a much later date than 20th November, 1965.
7. In view of the above discussions we find that WAPDA by applying its own Pay Revision Rules to the appellant in pursuance of the advice of the Accountant-General, did not commit any illegality or injustice. In fact it bettered the position of the appellant than if the matte had been left at the application of rule 9 of the Government Pay Revision Rules to his case. As for the appellant's contention regarding C. S. R.
4.7 and C. S. R.
4.9, we would certainly have found in his favour had we been convinced that his case was not covered by the said rule 9.
8. The upshot of the above is that the appeal is dismissed.