' S. HAFIZUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-This appeal from Ch. Nazir Ahmad and 13 other Supervisors of the Agricultural Engineering Department impugns the order dated 27th February, 1980 made by Secretary Aviculture whereby the appellants have been granted NPS-16 w,e,f, 27th February, 1980 instead of from 15th January, 1976 as claimed by them. A representation made in this behalf to the Secretary was rejected through order dated 8th July, 1980.
2. The background of the appellants' claim is that there are four types of Supervisors in the Agricultural Engineering Department; Training Supervisor, Unit Supervisor, Well Supervisor and Drilling Supervisor, The Finance Department vide notification dated 26th July, 1976 prescribed revised pay scales for these posts and laid down that for all these Supervisors N P S-16 would be available to 25% posts of the incumbents who are diploma holders w,e,f, 15th January, 1976. Before this decision could be implemented, the Secretary Finance issued a notification on 16th May, 1977 whereby N P S-16 was revised upwards but the conditions for the grant of this pay scale to 25% of diploma holders was imposed that they should have 10 years' service and should pass the prescribed departmental examination.
3. During the hearing o1 the appeal it was argued on behalf of the appellants that they were diploma holders on 16th January, 1976, the date from which N P S-16 was approved for 25% posts of diploma holders. At that time no condition was attached to the grant of NPS-16 to the stipulated strength of diploma holders first the respondents failed to implement the decision for almost a year and then they imposed the condition about 10 years' service and passing of the departmental examination. It was submitted that the Federal Government notification which the respondents were purportedly following in imposing the conditions, was issued much before the Provincial Government's notification of 26th July, 1976, wherein no condition was imposed; if at that time, i,e, on 26th July, 1976, the Federal Government notification was not followed then what was the consideration which prompted the Provincial Government to act upon it after such a long time. It was contended that a Federal Government notification would not be ipso facto applicable to employees of the Provincial Government unless it was duly adopted and made applicable. Rules on the subject of conditions of service of civil servants were quoted to aver that terms and conditions of service could not be changed to the disadvantage of civil servants.
4. The stand of the respondents, as put forth by the learned District Attorney, was that the decision to grant NPS-16 to diploma holders was taken by the Federal Government in consultation with representatives of all Provincial Governments on 3rd January, 1976 and it was also decided that N P S-16 should be given to 25% of the diploma holders who had completed 10 years' service and had passed the prescribed departmental examination. These decisions were reflected in F. D's notification of 16th May, 1977 and were not the result of any afterthought on the part of F. D.
5. We have given careful consideration to the arguments of both sides. We do not agree with the appellant's contention that a Federal Government notification was not applicable to provincial civil servants unless it was duly adopted, because in this case since the order of 16th May, 1977 was made in the form of a notification it implied its due adoption by the Provincial Government. The authority of the Provincial Government to make conditions for grant of pay scale to any category of its employees is not challenged, therefore there is no doubt that the provincial Government was empowered to place the conditions it decided to place on the grant of N P S-I6 25% of the diploma holders. The point in dispute is from which date the appellants become eligible for this NPS. Despite the arguments of the learned D A we have somehow not been able to appreciate the validity of the date i,e, 27th February, 1980 from which the appellants have been allowed NPS-16. This date does not denote anything; it does not mark any decision, any event, any landmark that should entitle it to be chosen as the date from which NPS-16 was to be made available to 14 Supervisors except that the order was issued on that date. Had that order been issued immediately after the meeting of the D. P. C. On 23rd January, 1980 or had it been delayed due to the multitude of routine administrative difficulties that beset Government Departments every day, would NPS-16 have been given to the appellants from that date? We are afraid that despite our best efforts we have not been able to understand the philosophy or logic or reason for fixing this date for the grant of the higher NPS. Any such concession or right is allowed in relation to certain happenings that lie behind a decision; it has never happened, to the best of our recollection that a revised NPS was granted from a certain date just because the order happened to issue from that date. That would indeed be whimsical.
6. The notification of 16th May, 1977 is very clear. It says that NPS-16 would be granted to "25 per cent posts of diploma holders with effect from the 15th January, 1976, to be filled on the basis of seniority cum fitness subject to 10 years' service and passing of the prescribed Departmental Examination".
There is no vagueness or ambiguity about these words. The only condition is that the person who is selected on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness should fulfill these two conditions. The role and purpose of the DPC was to determine suitability on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, and not to fix the date for grant of the NPS. Whatever, the appellants' right to NPS-16 it accrues to them from the notification of 16th May, 1977 and not from the proceedings of the DPC which merely decided who was to receive the NPS so allowed by that notification.
7. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the appellants are eligible by right to be placed in NPS-16 from the date they completed 10 years' service provided that they have passed the required departmental examination. To this extent this appeal is accepted. There shall be no order as to costs.