Moazzam Hayat, Member.--With this judgment we shall decide Appeals No, 156(P)CS/2011 to 159(P)CS/2011 filed by appellants Usman Ali, Muhammad Iqbal, Ghulam Nabi and Shahabuddin, as their facts are identical.
2. The appellants were reverted as Lance Naiks and were given 16 years reduced pension in that rank w,e,f, 29.12.2005 vide Paras 3(8), 3(12) and Para 3(52) of FIC Pension Regulations. Against their reversion they had filed Appeals No, 63, 129 to 131(P)CS/2006 which were decided on 26.05.2010. It was held by the FST that reversion tantamounted to penalty, therefore, a fresh order be passed after holding an inquiry. In compliance of the direction of the FST de novo proceedings were held.
After a detailed inquiry the order of reversion of the appellants as Lance Naiks and their retirement was held valid. They were directed to get completed their pension papers vide order dated 25.01.2011.
3. The de novo inquiry was held by Mr. Jehan Zeb, ADO, Frontier Constabulary. He submitted his report on 29.10.2010. It was held by him that the retirement of the appellants and grant of pension in the rank of Lance Naik was according to the rules.
4. The contention of the appellants is that they should have been given pension as Naiks. They contend that their reversion to the rank of Lance Naiks and grant of pension in that rank was not legal.
5. All the appeals are resisted by the respondents. It is stated that reversion of the appellants was made as per rules to enable them to get pension. According to them ten teachers had been appointed but all were retired out of which six had accepted their reverted rank and also pension but only the present appellants had voiced their grievance in that regard.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7. Section 19 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 deals with pension and gratuity. It says that on retirement from service a civil servant shall be entitled to receive such pension as may be prescribed.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents the pension of the appellants was fixed under the FIC Pension Regulations. According to him the respondents could fix the pension of the appellants as Lance Naiks. In support of his contention he has made a reference to Rule 362, Chapter XXII of the FIC Pension Regulations. It reads as under:-- "Use shall be made when necessary of those portions of the "Pension Regulation" relating to the premature retirement on an inferior pension of individuals whose retention for the full period of service can serve no useful propose. In such cases the interests, of the service shall be the primary consideration."
This rule definitely permits grant of inferior pension when the individuals are retired pre maturely as their retention could not serve any useful purpose. We are of the view that this rule is not applicable to persons who are appointed a particular post. The appellants were appointed as Naiks. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has not been controverted that in the education sector of the Frontier Constabulary there is no post of Lance Naik. Since teachers are appointed as Naiks, they are entitled to pension in the rank of Naiks. The above mentioned rule is applicable to those employees who are promoted. There is a provision for penalty of reversion in rank in the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and the Civil Servants (E&D)
Rules, 1973. This penalty cannot be awarded to a person who is employed in a particular grade. For example an employee appointed in Grade-17 cannot be reverted to Grade-16. Similarly a constable cannot be reverted to any lower grade because there is no lower grade that than that of a constable in the police service. On the same analogy for the purposes of pension a civil servant cannot be reverted to a lower rank which does not exist in his cadre of service. Even otherwise reversion is a penalty. Such penalty can be awarded after observance of legal formalities on a certain charge or charges. In the present case, the appellants had not committed any misconduct.
They were retired only because their further retention in service was not going to be useful for the department. On this reason they could not be made Lance Naiks as their substantial posting was of Naiks.
8. Even otherwise the established rule is that a civil servant is entitled to pension on the last pay drawn by him. This rule governs the appellants also. At the time of their retirement they were Naiks.
For the purposes of pension they could not be made Lance Naiks. Their past pension had to be against the post/posts in which they were working. It is established on record that in the last 16 years, before their retirement, the appellants had been serving as Naiks. For working as Naiks, they were entitled to pension as Naiks. They had not been L/Naiks. Thus they could not be given pension as Lance Naiks.
9. The FST had reinstated the appellants as Naiks vide its judgment dated 26.05.2010 passed in Appeals No,63(P) and 129 to 131(R)CS/2006. Once the FST had reinstated the appellants as Naiks, pension should have been given to them as Naiks and not as Lance Naiks. We are afraid the respondents could not sit over the judgment of the FST nor could they ignore it.
10.For the above reasons, the appeals are accepted. A direction is issued to the respondents to grant pension to the appellants as Naiks.
11.There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.