Muhammad Iqbal Shaikh, Member.--This appeal has been filed under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by Respondent No, 2 as appellate authority.
2. It has been stated that in the year 1998 the present appellant reached the maximum stage of Basic Pay Scale 16 whereupon further annual increments were stopped. This was illegal and contrary to FST judgment dated 3.7.2009 in Appeal No 298(R)CS/2005 titled "Bashir Ahmad Chauhan vs. Secretary finance Division and others." It has been contended that the appellant's case is identical to the above-mentioned case and as such he is entitled to the increments of 1999 and 2000. It has been further stated that relying on the above said judgment, Respondent No, 2 allowed one increment to the appellant for the year 2001 but increments for 1999 and 2000 were declined. His representation/appeal were rejected. It has been contended that the judgment of the Tribunal referred to above has not been implemented in letter and spirit. It has been prayed that the order dated 10.2.2012 whereby the increments for the years 1999 and 2000 have been declined may be set aside.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents. They have filed parawise comments/objections on 17.5.2012.
4. The respondents have stated that the appellant while working as Stenographer BS-15 was granted move-over to BS-16. Consecutive move-overs in the same scale cannot be given under the rules. It has been further suited that the present appeal is badly time barred as it relates to 1998 & 1999 and as such it is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Reliance has been placed on 2007 SCM R 513. According to the respondents, FST judgment referred to by the appellant is not relevant to his claim. The departmental authority has exercised powers within the parameters of rules and policy and rejected the claim of the appellant as the same is not covered by the rules. It has been prayed that the appeal may be dismissed being devoid of merit.
5. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. Relevant portion of the FST judgment dated 03.7.2009 in Appeal No, 298(R)CS/2005 is reproduced below: "2. After introduction of New Pay Scales of 2001, the appellant exercised his option to be placed on the New Pay Scales notified by the Ministry of Finance on 04.09.2001 and which became effective from 01.12.2001"
5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record of the case very carefully.
We see that the new pay scales were announced on 01.07.2001, the appellant opted for the same on 20.09.2001 and his pay was fixed in BS-20 at 10th stage of the new pay scale at Rs, 24210/- w,e,f, 01.12.2001. Since the span of the new pay scale BS-20 was increased by four more stages, therefore, the appellant should have been allowed an increment of Rs, 950/- on 1.12.2001 as he had already reached the maximum of BS-20 in the old pay scales of 1994 and not given an increment on 01.12.2001 would mean that he would remain at the same stage (10th) for more than one year. We are persuaded by this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that with the increase in the span of the new pay scale to 14 stages there was no justification for the respondents to fix his pay at 10th stage, therefore, he is entitled to receive an increment on 01.12.2001."
7. In the present ease there is no question of mixing up of date of grant of increment and the date of effectiveness of the new pay scales. Thus the case cited by the appellant is not similar to the case in hand.
8. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed.
9.There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.