' S. HAFIZUR RAHMAN (MEMBER.)---The appellant, Said Rasool, was working as Divisional Accountant in the Development Authority when it was decided to dissolve the Authority and absorb the personnel working there in various departments of the Provincial Government. The dissolution was affected on 30th September, 1970. The appellant was absorbed w. e. f. 1st October, 1970 in the C. & W. Department as Accounts Assistant, which was a post lower than Divisional Accountant, but his last pay drawn in T D A was protected. The appellant has been agitating that whatever the post he was absorbed against, he should get the scale of pay which he was getting in the T D A and, in this connation, impugns the order of Secretary, H & P P Deptt. Dated 20th July, 1980, conveyed to him on 1st October, 1980 and informing him, that the Finance Department had rejected his representation.
2. The parties were heard. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that under the Governor's notification for absorption of D A staff the respondents were bound to give him the scale of pay which he had been receiving in the T D A. Some of his colleagues had been accommodated as Divisional Accountants in the departments where they were absorbed. It was true that some had not been given the scale of Divisional Accountant but they had been granted the scale in the form of personal pay. The appellant relied for his right on the C & W Notification of 3rd February, 1971 which said that the T D A staff absorbed in the Housing and Settlement Agency of the Department would "be appointed on equivalent posts and allowed the pay last drawn by them but otherwise they would be treated as new entrants". He said the D. G. Housing and Physical Planning had informed him that his case had been recommended to Finance Department but later it so happened that F. D. Did not agree with the recommendation.
3. On behalf of the respondents the learned D. A. Raised the legal objection that the appellant was estopped from claiming the post and scale of pay of Divisional Accountant because for 10 years he had accepted the post and scale of pay of Accounts Assistant. Finance Department had nothing against the appellant, but the fact was that, according to S&GAD circular letters of 12th May, 1973 of November, 1974, 23rd December, 1974, and of 26th November, 1974 on the subject of absorption and fixation of pay of surplus staff, only the last pay drawn is protected. The Government was not bound to absorb surplus staff against equivalent posts. Moreover, in the case of the appellant there was no post of Divisional Accountant in the heirarchy of the Housing and Settlement Agency. If some of the appellant's former colleagues of the T D A have been given posts of Divisional Accountant it is because such posts existed in the department which absorbed them.
4. The appellant has already proceeded on LPR. Much as we would like to help him so that he can derive some additional benefit in pension, etc, we are afraid the case does not offer any scope for such help. We have gone carefully through the various circulars/notifications concerning the appellant's claim and the Government decision concerning the absorption of surplus staff. Except for the above-mentioned words in the C & W Department's notification of 3rd February, 1971 there is no commitment by anyone that the appellant had to be appointed in an equivalent post and it so happens that the final authority to decide this was not the C & W Deptt. Which had done its bit for the appellant by recommending the matter to the F. D. The principles framed by the Government on the subject of absorption of surplus staff do not hold out the guarantee that such stiff must be provided equivalent posts. The Government has to try to accommodate them in equivalent posts but if such posts are not available they are offered lower posts and are at liberty to refuse.
5. In view of the circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot be given any relief. The appeal is consequently dismissed.
3.