' Syed Arshad Ali, Member.--The appellant above-named through the instant appeal impugned the letter dated 30.10.2007 whereby the appellant's request of fixation of his pay and seniority w,e,f, the date of joining as Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) was declined by the Accountant General as communicated by the office of the Director General, Pakistan Revenue, DGPR, Sub-Office of AGPR, Karachi. The appellant preferred departmental representation against the impugned order on 29.11.2007 which remained responded; hence this appeal praying that the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 be set aside and his seniority and pay be e-fixed w,e,f, 01.07.2001.
2. The factual position as per memo. Of appeal is that the appellant had been serving as Instructor in the Labour Department, Government of Sindh since 16.04.1990. On successful selection through Federal Public Service Commission, the appellant was offered appointment as Assistant Accounts Officer AAO (BS-16) in the office of Auditor General of Pakistan vide letter dated 07.04.2001. The appellant joined the Audit & Accounts Training. Institute Lahore. On completion of training, the appellant was posted as Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-16) on probation. The appellant could not pass the examination and at the same time, probation period of the appellant being two years had also expired; since the appointment was governed under Section-6 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 read with Rule-21 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973, the appellant's services were terminated on 01.08.2005. In the same letter dated 01.08.2005, the appellant was offered the post of Senior Auditor (BS-11) as fresh appointment. The appellant had accepted the terms and conditions in writing on 03.09.2005.
3. The appellant was appointed as Senior Auditor (BS-11) on 20.04.2006 being fresh appointment by the authority in (BS-11). The pay of the appellant was fixed in (BS-11) as was on 03.09.2005 as being Senior Auditor issued by the Respondent # 3, DGPR, Karachi. The period from 01.08.2005 to 03.09.2005 i,e, the intervening period from termination of service to that of re-appointment was treated as LFP (leave on full pay). In addition, he was allowed to draw three different allowances being Senior Auditor w,e,f, 01.08.2005 which were frozen at the time of termination of his service as AAO. The appellant qualified PIPFA examination in September 2006 and were promoted on the recommendation of DSC/DPC on 13.06.2007 along with two others to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) BS-16. The appellant on 07.05.2007 agitated through his written request for re-fixation of pay and seniority from the date of joining the department as Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-16) which was rejected by the competent authority hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted parawise comments on behalf of all respondents stating therein that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer (DR) w,e,f, 01.07.2001 in the defunct department of D.A.I.S. & F., Karachi with the condition that he will have to qualify the SAS Examination in three chances/attempts otherwise his services will be terminated.
He however could not qualify the Examination within the specified attempts. According to the terms & conditions of his appointment, his services as Assistant Accounts Officer (DR) were to be terminated but in order to provide his additional chances to qualify the SAS Examination, his probation was extended from time to time till 31.07.2005 by the Controller General of Accounts, Islamabad. During the extended period of his probation he however failed to pass the SAS Examination. Resultant, his services as Assistant Accounts Officer (DR) were terminated w,e,f, 01.08.2005 by the Controller General of Accounts, Islamabad vide letter # Admn.I/PF-AAO/44/R.174 dated 11.08.2005 on the ground of having not qualified the SAS Examination. After termination of his service as Assistant Accounts officer (DR) he was however appointed afresh as Senior Auditor (BS- 11) w,e,f, 03.09.2005 vide DGPR's letter issued vide No, Admn.I/AAO- Sr. Ar/293 TR.1224 dated 20.04.2006. It is submitted that during the period from 01.07.2001 to 31.07.2005 when he was holding the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (DR) he was allowed all the benefits viz: seniority, pay and annual increments in BS-16 accrued during this period. It was stated that while holding the post of Senior Auditor, appellant appeared in the PIPFA (Public Sector) Examination and qualified the same.
On qualifying the PIPFA (Public Sector) Examination, he was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-16) w,e,f, 04.06.2007 vide office order dated 13.06.2007. They stated that the appeal submitted by the appellant regarding re-fixation of his pay and seniority as Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-16) from the date of joining the department w,e,f, 01.07.2001 was considered by the Respondent # 1 and was rejected vide letter dated 21.05.2008. The reply received from Respondent # 1 was also conveyed to the appellant vide letter dated 12.06.2008, relevant para of the said letter dated 21.05.2008, rejecting his appeal, is reproduced below:-- "The seniority from the date of joining in the AATI was assigned to Mr. Mansoor Shahzad by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad but the judgment was not applicable in all such cases. Hence the case of Mr.Qaisar Ismail cannot be linked with the case of Mr.Mansoor Shahzad as such his appeal is rejected".
5. The learned counsel argued that when an identical question has already been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal relating to the terms & conditions of service, not only of the appellant but also of others, benefits of judgment shall also be extended to other employees. He argued that earlier on copies of two judgments of this Tribunal passed in Appeal # 571(R)CS/2004 (Muhammad Mansoor Shahzad us. CGA) and 149(P)CS/2003 (Mutahir Shah vs. AGPR) have already been filed alongside the appeal. He has also placed on record copies of three judgments of this Tribunal in (1) Appeal No, 236( R)/99 (Muhammad Altaf vs. Federation of Pakistan & others), (2) 290(L)/96 (Bilal Qadir us.
Auditor General of Pakistan & others and (3) 142(R)CS/07 (Muhammad Arif vs. Auditor General of Pakistan & others). Learned counsel contended that in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan & others reported in 1996 SCMR 1185, it was, inter-alia, held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:- "----Appeal to Service Tribunal or Supreme Court---Effect--If the Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may not have taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by Service Tribunal/Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal or any other forum".
' Learned counsel also placed his reliance on 2005 PLC (CS) 368(Tara Chand & others vs. Karachi Water & Sewerage Board, Karachi & others), which is also on the same point of law, ibid.
6. The position taken by the appellant is correct in the light of the two Appeals # 571(R)CS/2004 (Muhammad Mansoor Shahzad vs. CGA) and 149(P)CS/2003 (Mutahir Shah us. AGPR) wherein identical question on point of law and facts had already been settled in relation to the terms and conditions of service; the benefits of which shall be extended to others. Such position was further cemented and upheld in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment reported as 1996 SCMR 1185(Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan & others} Accordingly, the dictates and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by Service Tribunal/Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal or any other forum.
7. In view of the discussion as above and in deference to the dicta of the Federal Service Tribunal and Honble Supreme Court, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the seniority and pay is ordered to be re-fixed w,e,f, 01.07.2001 as prayed. No order as to costs.
8. Parties be informed accordingly.