Ch. Shahid Naseer , Member .--The appellant has moved this appeal to the effect that impugned orders dated 28.12.2016 & 10.3.2017, be set aside.
2. Briefly stated that the appellant was appointed, on the recommendations of the FPSC as Accountant (BS-16) on 1.3.1988, which was re-designated as Assistant Accounts Officer. He was 'granted Selection Grade in BS-17 in September , 1996. The appellant has further stated that the appellant while working as Assistant Accounts Officer was granted 732 days leave on half average pay w.e.f. 12.7.2004 to 13.7.2006, which was curtailed through order dated 22.8.2005, which came into his notice after seven months, while visiting his office in connection with the official matter . Subsequently , a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the appellant, vide order dated 19.9.2006, which was given effect from 4.9.2006 vide order dated 7.11.2006. Thereafter , the period of leave was decided vide order dated 17.2.2007 and the period from 23.8.2005 to 4.9.2006 was treated as EOL. He filed a service Appeal No. 62(L)CS/2013 in this Tribunal, which was decided vide judgme nt dated 9.2.2016, against him.
The appellant has further submitted that in pursuance of the Circular dated 29.8.201 1, he alongwith many others were granted one premature increment in consequence of upgradation of the post of A.A.O from BS-16 to BS-17 w.e.f. 12.9.2005 vide order dated 18.1.2012, resultantly his pension was also revised. The appellant moved an application for the grant of anomaly increment w.e.f. 8.3.2001, in accordance with the Finance Division O.M. dated 20.6.1995, which was granted to him w.e.f. 8.3.2001 vide revised pay slip dated 28.12.2016. Surprisingly , while granting increment to him, the premature increment granted w.e.f. 12.9.2005 through order dated 18.1.2012 was withdrawn under the garb of revised pay slip without granting opportunity of hearing and giving reasons, on false pretexts. He made a representation on 23.1.2017 for' the, purpose, which was rejected through impugned order dated 10.3.2017. The learned counsel has argued that the increment and benefits of pension cannot be withdrawn or revised in accordance with the principle of locus poenitantiae and he is also entitled to the grant of annual increment on 1.12.2006 while remained in service for more than six months during the calendar year 2006. The impugned order was passed without any lawful authority as such the appellant has prayed for acceptance of his appeal.
3. The respondents vehemently contesting the appeal, have raised some preliminary objections that the departmental appeal was not filed by the appellant in time which was badly barred by time, as per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2007 SCMR 513 and the instant issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 62(L)CS/2013, vide judgment dated 9.2.2016, while dismissing the appeal. The post of AAO (BS-16) was upgraded to BS-17 w.e.f. 12.9.2005 and the appellant was' not on the effective strength of the Departments and 'un-authorizedly absented himself from duty w.e.f. 23.8.2005 to 4.9.2006 (378-days) which was regularized as E.O.L, the non-qualifying service of the appellant. Hence, he is not eligible for the upgradation from BS-16 to BS-17, which was allowed to the serving Government servants. He was upgraded inadvertently as such wrong fixation was corrected by refixing his actual pay scale i.e. BS-16. His request for removal of anomaly was considered twice by the Competent Autho rity, but regretted as not admissible. His absence period w.e.f. 23.8.2005 to 4.9.2006 was regularized as E.O.L (without pay and allowances) as he is neither entitled for upgradation nor entitled to annual increment as due on 1.12.2006, which was informed to him on 28.2.2017. He was not completed six months qualifying service during 2006 as required for grant of annual increment vide Finance Division O.M. dated 8.3.1972, hence appeal be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The elaborate perusal of the record transpires that prior to this Appeal No. 321(L)12017, dated 9.6.2017, the appellant moved a Service Appeal No. 62(L)CS/2013, dated 22.3.2013, 'before this Tribunal, whereby the order of imposing penalty of compulsory retirement from service was challenged. The said service appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal on 9.2.2016 as being barred by time and devoid of merits. It had already been observed therein that: -- "8. The long and short of the matter is that the leave granted to the appellant was competently cancelled by the competent authority . The appellant was duly informed about the same but he did not join duty. As such the respondents were justified in imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement on the appellant. Besides, the appellant was compulsory retired around ten years ago. The appellant had received his pensionary benefits. He is regularly receiving his pension. As such he cannot be heard saying that the impugned penalty was unjustifiably imposed upon him."
The said judgment reflects that the punishment was rightly imposed and the appellant was receiving pension regularly . Through this service appeal, the appellant has claimed to set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2016, whereby annual increment granted to him w.e.f. 12.9.2005, was withdrawn and also claimed annual increment, falling due on 1.12.2006, on the ground that he remained in service for more than six months, during the calendar year 2006. He has also prayed for receiving his pensionary benefits after restoration of his increment granted on 12.9.2005 and by granting increment on 1.12.2006 with all the consequential benefits. The worth nothing point is that the appellant was granted 732 days leave on half average pay w.e.f. 12.7.2004 to 13.7.2006 which was, later on curtailed, vide impugned order dated 22.8.2005, and then vide order , dated 17.2.2007, the period w.e.f. 23.8.2005 to 4.9.2006 was treated as E.O.L. His post of AAO, from BS-16 to BS-17, w.e.f. 12.9.2005, vide order dated 18.1.2012 was up-graded and one premature increment was granted to him. Subsequently , in accordance with the Finance Division O.M. dated. 20.6.1995, he was granted with an anomaly increment w.e.f.
8.3.2001, vide Revised Pay Slip, dated 28.12.2016 and then already granted premature increment on up-gradation was withdrawn. The appellant feeling aggrieved, moved a departmental appeal as he according to his own version entitled to a premature increment, granted w.e.f. 12.9.2005. Perhaps, the appellant has ignored the period w.e.f.
23.8.2005 to 4.9.2006, which was treated as E.O.L. It means the said period was devoid of any monetary benefit.
Therefore, vide order dated 28.12.2016, the Military Accountant General, Rawalpindi, issued a Revised Pay Slip with detailed remarks. The premature increment was related to the period of September , 2005, when he was undergoing E.O.L period, therefore, the question of sustaining the premature increment could not be agitated.
Secondly , he was compulsorily retired on 4.9.2006 and in the said year 2006 he remained on E.O.L; not giving any monetary benefit, so the respondent-Department considering the said period i.e. E.O.L, issued a Revised Pay Slip and granted pension.
6. The appellant in his memo of appeal has stated that vide order dated 22.8.2005 his leave was curtailed and he was not informed accordingly . After abou t seven (07) months he came to know about the said order , while in his departmental appeal dated 23.1.2017 and 20.2.2017 he had taken the plea that while his leave was curtailed he could not join the duty due to gigantic problems. The appellant has made contradictory statements, which reflects that he was aware of the order passed regarding the curtailment of leave period. The respondent-Department has rightly and with reasoning passed the impugned order dated 28.12.2016 and 10.3.2017, so we find no justification in the light of the aforesaid facts to interfere with, hence the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as being devoid of force and merits.
7. No order as to costs.