Moazzam Hayat, Member--Appellant Muhammad Hayat Malik retired as Secretary Railways Board. His grievance is that his pensionary benefits were not correctly, calculated vide order dated 11.11.2010, conveyed to him on 01.12.2010. His departmental appeal dated 27.12.2010 was not responded. Hence this appeal.
2. The pension of the appellant was calculated at Rs, 47,854/-. According to him it should have been calculated at Rs, 49,840/- along with benefits.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed (BS-20) was Secretary Railways Board and since he was sent on forced leave the appellant was assigned the duties of Secretary Board vice him in his own pay and scale. Thus the contention of the respondents is that the appellant was entitled to fixation of pay and pension in his substantial pay scale on his retirement.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. It may be mentioned here that in his application dated 27:12.2010 the appellant had described himself, as Ex-Secretary, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). It means that he was serving the Railway Board and was not Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. It is for this reason that we have used term Railway Board in the Judgment.
6. It transpires from the record that Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed was in BS-20 when he was made Secretary Railways Board. He was sent on forced leave. The appellant was directed to perform the duties of Secretary in his own pay and scale. It appears that this arrangement was made without prior approval of the Prime Minister of Pakistan. His approval was obtained on 22.07.2009 on a summary dated 22.06.2007 submitted by the then Secretary Railway, Mr. Sami Khilji. The appellant had been given the assignment of Secretary in his own pay and scale but under the rules he was entitled to pay of the higher post for the period he had remained Secretary of the Board. However, on his retirement he was entitled to pension of the substantial post held by him. He could not claim the pension of the post to which he had been sent as a stop gap arrangement. The appellant was promoted to BS-21 on 04.05.2010. He was thus entitled to pension in BS-21, on the pay which he would have drawn had he not been given the assignment of higher post.
7. The pay and pension of the appellant was fixed in his original scale of pay in the light of Finance Division O.M. dated 14.06.2010. There was no illegality or irregularity committed by respondents in fixation of the pension of the appellant. Hence his appeal for refutation of his pension as Secretary of the Railway Board has no merit and is rejected.
8. If the appellant had earned any increments during the period he had remained Secretary to the Pakistan Railways Board, they could not be included in the pay of the higher post. However, increments as admissible to a Grade-21 Officer, for the said period, should have been included in his pay for reckoning his pension. According to the respondents these increments were included in his pay for computation of his pension. They shall ensure that their this averment is correct. With this direction the appeal is disposed of.
9. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.