' The 3 respondents, Abdul Razzaque, Mairajuddin and Mureed Hussain, were promoted as foremen from the rank of engine drivers, by notice, dated 8th May, 1980, issued by the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways. Sukkur, after the said respondents bad passed P-6 Course. As according to the respondents the said promotion entitled substantial loss in their total emoluments, they challenged the order of their promotion before the learned VIlth Labour Court at Sukkur. The learned Labour Court has taken the view that as the respondents would be suffering financial loss on account of the so-called promotion and that further they are not only willing to forego the rights of promotion but are even prepared to pay the expenses of their training of P-6 Course, they have a genuine grievance. It accordingly has allowed the grievance petitions of the 3 respondents and set aside their orders of promotion. The Railways administration being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned Labour Court has come up in separate appeals to this Tribunal. This order will dispose of the 3 appeals filed by the Railways administration, one in respect of each of the respondents.
2. I have heard Mr. Alvi, the learned counsel for the Railways administration, and Mr. Hassan Hameedi Advocate and Mr. M. A. Hakeem, who appeared for the respondents. It was contended by Mr. Alvi that no Railway employee has the absolute right to forego promotion and the Railway administration has authority to reject the request of an employee for foregoing promotion. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the Subsidiary Instructions under rule 4 (b) of Appendix XI, in the N. W. F. P. Railway Advance Chapter No. 1 of the Personnel Manual. Appendix XI contains the rules governing the promotion of Class III staff to which category the 3 respondents admittedly belong. The Subsidiary Instructions under rule 4 (b) relied upon by Mr. Alvi reads as follows :- "Subsidiary Instruction.-if an employee refuses to accept promotion\ to a non-selection post, his name shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. In the case of refusal to accept promotion to a selection post, the name of the employee refusing promotion shall be removed from the panel, The Administration will have the right at all times not to accept an emplyee's refusal of promotion if it considers that such refusal is contrary to the public interest."
3. A bare perusal of the above rule clearly indicates that whereas in certain cases an employee may be allowed to refuse promotion, the Railway administration has a right not to accept such refusal of promotion if the refusal is considered contrary to the public interest. The position, therefore, that emerges is that although the Railway administration had the override power to refuse to agree to an employee foregoing his promotion, such refusal must be on account of public interest. There is evidence on record to suggest that on account of loss of total Wages involved in the promotion from the post of driver to that of foreman, drivers are most unwilling to accept the promotion post of foreman. The attraction to continue as a driver and to refuse the higher post of foreman is on account of the fact that a driver besides his pay, gets a special allowance of 55% of his pay, which counts for his pension and gratuity, and additionally gets substantial running allowance. According to witness Mairajuddin the concerned clerk of the Railway administration who appeared as a witness for the Railway administration, the total wages of the respondent, Abdul Razzaque as engine driver amount to Rs. 1,876. On the other hand, the starting pay of a foreman is only Rs. 630 and the only allowance which he gets is 75% of his pay for the first 2 years 50% of the pay for the next 2 years and 25% of pay for a period of 3 years, thereafter, and then this special allowance ceases -altogether. Furthermore, the special allowance does not count for his pension and gratuity. The contention, therefore, of the respondents that on promotion to the post of foreman there would be substantial reduction in their total emoluments is well founded. The mere fact, however, that on promotion to the post of foreman, the respondents' total emoluments including allowances would be less than the total emoluments, including allowances, cannot be considered to be entitling them to refuse promotion, in view of rule 4 (Instructions) reproduced above. It is not disputed that the basic pay of a foreman is substantially higher than the basic pay of an engine driver. So far as the allowances are concerned, they are paid to the employees either because of the difficulty, social or arduous nature of duties which they are required to perform or the extra expenses which they have to incur for performing certain duties. For instance, the running allowance payable to the running staff is granted to enable the running staff to meet the additional expenses which they have to undertake while on journey away from home. As such, though there is undoubtedly a reduction in the total emoluments of an engine driver on promotion to the post of foreman, the reduction is by reason of the loss of the allowances which are payable for performing special duties or incurring extra expenditure, but as regards the basic wages, there is admittedly an increase in the same on promotion.
4. Mr. Hassan Hameedi sought to argue that the wages of a railway employee are guaranteed and if there is any reduction in his wages then he is entitled to file a grievance petition under section 25-A,
1. R.
0. He was, however, unable to cite any rule or instructions of the railway in this behalf. All that he was able to cite before me in support of his contention was rule 5 of section 3 of Advance Chapter No. 1 of the Personnel Manual. The said rule provides that the pay drawn by a person in a post in a provisionally substantive capacity should be regarded as substantive pay for the purpose of rule 20.17 (F.R.
22.R) and once his pay is so fixed his pay in the higher officiating post should not change even if he reverts from his provisional appointment during the tenure of his appointment in the higher officiating post. I have already referred to the fact that though the total emoluments of a driver are substantially reduced on his promotion to the post of a foreman, his basic pay is increased and the reduction in the total emoluments is by reason of loss of some of the special allowances which are payable to drivers. As such, on promotion of a driver to the post of a foreman, there is no infringement of rule 5 above.
5. There remains the question whether the respondent promoted to the post of foreman in the public interest. Net grievance notices nor in their grievance petition have any o, dents alleged that the orders of promotion were not in the public On the other hand, the stand of the appellants in their reply was that the promotion of the 3 respondents was in the public and the orders were passed after they had passed their P-6 Court the evidence of the appellants' witness also indicates that the promotion of the 3 respondents was in the public interest. It may further be pointed out that by reason of unwillingness of the drivers to accept the promotion posts of foreman, the Railway administration, vide their letter No. 830-El 30/L-II (EI/D), dated 24th March, 1977, as a special case, had granted a special allowance to foremen of 75% of their pay for first 2 years, 50% of the pay for the next 2 years and 25% for next 2 years. This letter further supports the contentions of the appellants that the promotion of the respondents was in the public interest. I am, therefore, of the view that the promotion of the 3 respondents was in accordance with the provisions of rule 4 (Subsidiary Instructions) in Appendix II of the Advance Chapter No. I of the Personnel Manual.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in the grievance petitions of the 3 respondents; I would accordingly set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the 3 appeals. Before parting with this judgment, I would like to observe that though the Railway undoubtedly have the right to refuse the request of an employee not to be considered for promotion or not to be promoted but since there is a very great disparity in the total emoluments of the engine drivers and the foremen, the Railway administration may consider measures for reducing this disparity in order to encourage the drivers to accept the promotions.