Moazzam Hayat, Member.-- this judgment we shall decide Appeals No, 533(R)CS/2011 to 537(R)CS/2011. The appellants are Assistant Technical Officers in the service of respondents. Their grievance is that their junior was given more pay. According to them it was an anomaly which had to be correctly resolved.
2. All the appeals are resisted by the Finance Division stating that it is for the parent department of the appellants to resolve the issue. The parent department too has not seriously resisted the appeals. However, the Accounts Officer has contested the appeals. He has submitted that Muhammad Rafiq, ATO was definitely junior to the present appellants but he had been given higher pay since he had earned increments for acquiring higher academic qualifications. According to him the increments on qualifications tantamounted to personal pay and a senior could not make any grievance in that regard.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. We see no anomaly in this case. Muhammad Rafiq, ATO was admittedly junior to the present appellants. He was granted advance increments on his academic qualifications. His pay was thus increased. It was more than the pay of the appellants. The appellants had not acquired such academic qualifications. Hence they could not make any grievance that Muhammad Rafiq was getting higher pay than them despite his juniority. Any increment given on academic qualifications is always treated to be personal pay of the civil servant. When a civil servant gets personal pay, his total pay is increased. He may get more pay than his seniors. It does not give any right to the seniors to claim pay over and above the pay of that civil servant. If the claim of the appellants is allowed, the benefit of advance increments for possessing higher academic qualifications shall lose its effect. The seniors shall start crying for pay higher than the junior despite the junior being more qualified. We see no logic in the claim of the appellants for higher pay than the pay of Muhammad Rafiq.
5. The appellants had made references for increase in their pay when the pay of Muhammad Rafiq was fixed at higher ceiling. Their references were allowed. This was a mistake which, is patent on record. On the principle of locus poenitentiae the appellants could not. claim the benefit of that mistake. Whereas the payments already made cannot be recovered from the appellants on the above mentioned principle of locus poenitentiae, there was no legal bar in the correction of their pay slips. In the grade in which the appellants and Muhammad Rafiq are working, Muhammad Rafiq is entitled to more pay on the basis of his academic qualifications.
6. As mentioned above, great deal has been said about the principle of locus poenitentiae. It is clarified that this principle does not allow illegality/irregularity to continue. To be precise this principle does not give perpetuity to a wrong. Such an illegality/irregularity can be corrected whenever it comes to the notice of the authority. However, any payment made by the authorities wrongfully, with no contribution on the part of the civil servant, cannot be recovered from him.
7. We accordingly hold that no recovery can be made from the appellants from the excess payments made to them. However, the respondents have correctly rectified the mistake committed by them in fixing their pay equal to or higher than the pay of Muhammad Rafiq.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on promotion to the next grade the appellants shall start getting higher pay than Muhammad Rafiq. This argument is speculatory and conjectural. The stage for consideration of this argument shall come when the parties are promoted. We are also confident that the respondents shall take a correct decision when such promotions are in fact made.
9. We find no merit in the appeals as regards correction of the pay slips of the appellants. Their appeals to that extent are dismissed. But at the same time we also direct that payments already made to them shall not be recovered from them.
10. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.