' SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).-This consolidated order will dispose of Appeal No, 152 (P) of 1980 by Abdul Hamid Khalil, Appeal No, 161(P) of 1980 by Nisar Ahmad Siddiqi and Appeal No, 162(P) of 1980 by Abdul Salam. The first named and the last named officials joined the Accounts Department in the year 1954, while Nisar Ahmad Siddiqi joined the service in 1955 as Upper Division Clerks, now redesignated as Auditors. The next promotion was ordinarily to the grade of Assistant Superintendent but for that post certain qualifications, such as passing of the SAS Examination were specified. There being dearth of the qualified persons to be posted as Assistant Superintendents, the appellants in 1970 and 1971 were appointed Clerks Incharge, who performed the duties of Assistant Superintendent. For this job, besides their pay as UDC/Auditor, they were allowed special pay of Rs,
60. The appellants protested against this arrangement and claimed that since they had been appointed to work against the post of Assistant Superintendent, they should be allowed the grade of that post, and that the increments too, should be allowed to them from year to year. These representations having been rejected in all stages, they have come up in appeals before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied firstly on the case of Postmaster-General, Eastern Circle v. Mohammad Hasham (1) and secondly on the unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 35-R-78, entitled Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Qazi Abdul Karim. In both these cases, it had been held on the interpretation of the relevant rules that when a Govern. Ment servant is appointed to a post carrying higher responsibility, he had to be paid the pay of the said post. In the case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Qazi Abdul Karim, the view taken by the Supreme Court was that in such cases a civil servant is entitled to get the minimum pay of the grade of the higher post and the decision also was to that effect.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for respondent that the two cases, referred to above, have no relevancy whatsoever with the circumstances of the present cases, inasmuch as in those cases the Government servants were actually promoted to the higher post, but their pay was restricted to that which they were drawing in their substantive posts. In the present case, it is urged that the appellants were never promoted as Assistant Superintendent, but they were appointed as Clerks Incharge and for doing the duties of the higher post, they were being paid special pay of Rs, 60 per month.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel for respondent that the appellants were not promoted as Assistant Superintendents and consequently they are not entitled to the pay of that post has little force, inasmuch as, it was admitted at the bar that the Clerks Incharge were performing the same duties which are ordinarily to be performed by the Assistant Superintendents, and these had carried higher responsibilities. By merely changing the name of the post from Assistant Superintendent to Clerks Incharge, the respondent could not go out of the decisions of the Supreme Court as it amounts to fraud on law. However, during {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1978 SC 61 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' the course of arguments, it was admitted by the appellants that their substantive pay together with special pay of Rs, 60 exceeded the minimum pay of the Assistant Superintendent. In such circumstances, the appellants did not suffer any loss though they were not actually appointed in name as Assistant Superintendent, but were given the name of Clerks Incharge. None of the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, leads to the conclusion that a Government servant when appointed to a higher post has necessarily to draw the increments as well. The ratio of the decision on the basis of different Fundamental Rules relevant to the situation is that when a person I appointed to a post of higher responsibility, he has to be paid the minimum of the scale of the post and that to the extent the Government has power to restrict the pay. Since in the present cases, the appellant throughout their appointment as Clerks Incharge had been receiving pay taken together with special pay at a rate higher than the minimum pay of the Assistant Superintendent, they have no cause of action to ask, for being paid the grade of Assistant Superintendent together with increments.
5. For the above reasons, we find no substance in these appeals, and these are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to cost.