' S. HAFEEZ-UR-RERMAN (MEMBER).-This is an appeal from Mushtaq Ahmad, at present working as Private Secretary to Members (R), Board of Revenue, against the decision of the Finance Department, conveyed to the BOR vide letter dated 21st January, 1980 and further intimated to the appellant vide D.
0. Letter dated 19th February, 1980 that his request for the Secretariat pay scale had been rejected.
' The appellant joined the office of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab as Junior Clerk on 28th July, 1954. This office, on the integration of West Pakistan, was converted into the Board of Revenue. For some years there was a state of in decision whether the Board of Revenue was a Secretariat Office or an Attached Department, and it was finally declared that it was a part.Of the Secretariat.
Because of this decision the ministerial staff working therein became entitled to receive the protected Secretariat pay scale. This facility was governed by the principles laid down in FD's circular letter dated 15th December, 1956 whereby persons confirmed in their posts on or before 13th October, 1955 and those who were officiating against permanent posts carrying Secretariat scales and in clear vacancies on 13th October, 1955 were entitled to draw pay in the Secretariat pay scale in the offices of the Head of Attached Departments while working in posts carrying lower pay scales but of corresponding status. These principles were later relaxed vide F. D. Circular dated 7th May, 1969 to the extent that ministerial staff belong to the pre-integration Financial Commissioners' office who were working against posts which had been in existence for five years or more on 13th October, 1955 will be deemed to have been working against clear vacancies and would thus be entitled to the protected Secretariat scale. The dispute which we are called upon to settle is whether the appellant is entitled to the Secretariat pay-scale or not.
3. The parties were heard. Admittedly the appellant was working against a post which was in existence for more than 5 years on 13th October, 1955 and is qualified to receive the Secretariat scale. However, It was the respondent's contention, based on the stand taken by F. D that the circular letter of 15th December, 1956 also laid down that such persons will continue to draw the protected pay scale when they are promoted to hold higher posts if they are in the regular line, Since the appellant was not in the regular line and had changed his cadre many times by alternating between the Steno-Typist/Stenographer line and the Senior Clerk/Assistant line during the period from joining service to the year 1976 when he was promoted Personal Assistant, he could not be given the special scale. To this appellant's contention was that he was finally transferred to the Steno-Typist cadre on !St July, 1964 but before that there were no distinct cadres of Steno- Typists and Clerks and when be was working as Steno Typist his name was all the time borne on the clerical list. That is why he was promoted as Senior Clerk when he was actually working as Steno Typist, and again he was promoted Assistant while he was working as Stenographer. The appellant further contended that he had been recruited as Junior Clerk under the Financial Commissioner (Punjab) Subordinate Service Rules, 1943, whereby the posts of Assistant and Stenographer were equated. In any case, whatever the posts that he had been holding he had remained in the B.
0. R. Ever since joining service and he could not now be denied the Secretariat pay scale on the basis of not being in regular line,
4. We have given or considered thought to this matter and have given due attention to the written and oral arguments of the parties. In order to understand and appreciate the correct position we have gone through the relevant files of the B.
0. R. And F. D. Pertaining to the case of the appellant. We think that before proceeding further it would be useful to first give details of the appellant's service career from 1st October, 1961 onwards the date from which he considers himself entitled to the Scare. Tariat pay-scale :- ' On 1st October, 1961 24th July, 1962 17th August, 1962 20th August, 1962 2nd October, 1962 17th October, 1962 5th December, 1962 1st April, 1963 1st May, 1963 ' 1st August, 1963 28th August, 1973 1st June, 1964 1st December, 1974 15th January, 1976 Steno-Typist Stenographer Steno-Typist Stenographer Steno-Typist Stenographer Steno-Typist Stenographer Assistant Senior Clerk Assistant Stenographer Senior Scale Stenographer P. A. , ' The above dates and postings are taken from the written statement filed by F. D. And are said to be based on the appellant's Service Book. According to this table of dates, the appellant was working as Assistant or Senior Clerk, i,e, in the Senior Clerk/Assistant cadre, from 1st May, 1963 to 31st May, 1964, because the next day i,e, on 1st June e 1964 he was placed in the cadre of Stenographers. We have not seen in the personal file of the appellant any application or request for transfer to the clerical cadre and it seems that on a post of Assistant falling vacant he was promoted to it along with some others, on 1st May, 1963 when lie Was working as Stenographer. The order of promotion says .." promoted as officiating Assistant with effect from 1st May, 1963 (forenoon) for a period of three months as a purely temporary measure and on the clear understanding that they shall be liable to revert at any time during that period without notice or cause assigned." When, on 1st August, 1963 he was reverted, as Senior Clerk, and not as Stenographer he protested in writing that he should have been reverted to his original post of Stenographer. On this, the Assistant Secretary (Gen.) of the Board wrote to him to "state clearly whether he wishes to continue in the cadre of Senior Clerk/Assistant or he wants a transfer to the cadre of Stenographers/Steno Typists which he was holding prior to his promotion as Assistant.
Having given his option for Stenographer on 4th July, 1964 the order was issued on 4th August, 1964 transferring him to the cadre of Stenographers with effect from 1st June, 1964. This shows that he did not remain out of his own cadre on his own asking, but came back to it on his own request.
5. According to the respondent's written statement : "The benefit of protected Secretariat Scale would have been allowed to him had he continued in the same line of promotion in which he had started his service career as per Finance Department's letter dated 15th December 1956."
' This is a statement made in 1981. What would have been the position If the grant of the Secretariat pay scale to the appellant had been approved soon after 1st October, 1961, the date when the B.O.R.
Was declared as part of the Secretariat and from which date the appellant claims the scale of pay ? Would he have been deprived of the scale or promotion as Assistant on 1st May, 1963 because the promotion was not in his own cadre ? Actually we have not been able to appreciate the wisdom and logic behind the condition of "in the regular line". Both the cadre viz. Senior Clerk/Assistant and Steno-Typist/Stenographer in the B.
0. R. Are entitled to the protected pay scale, of course if the incumbents fulfil the conditions prescribed in FD's letters of 15th December, 1956 and 7th May, 1969. Transfer from one to the other, therefore, should not deprive a person of this concession. However, it is not for us to quibble if F. D.
Chases impose to the condition that for enjoyment of the protected scale subsequent to promotion the promotion should be in regular line. Basically the concession was for persons working in the B O R since before 13th October, 1955, as the appellant undoubtedly was, and it should not have mattered whether a person moved from one cadre to the other so long as both the cadres qualified for the Secretariat pay-scale. But as we have just said, we will not question F.D.'s decision to place a rider on the concession.
6. To resume or discussion the appellant was promoted Assistant, out of his own cadre, on 1st May, 1963. This means that he was Stenographer on 30th April, 1963. If we ignore the period he served in the clerical cadre, we find that the appellant was again on the same post of Stenographer on 1st June, 1964, an absence from the cadre of one year and one month. Since he resumed his adherence to his own cadre in the same post and does not claim the protected pay for a promotion other than in the regular line he does not come within the mischief of F.D,'s order. We hold, therefore, that for the period the appellant worked in the clerical cadre i,e, from 1st May, 1963 to 31st May, 1964, he will be entitled to the Secretariat pay scale. Otherwise it is his due and right, being a person working in the B 0 R.
7, As a result of the above, the appeal is accepted subject to the exception mentioned in the preceding paragraph.