M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court arises from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 30-5-1977, whereby the appeal of respondent Haji Ahmad Jan -was allowed and the appellant, Government of Pakistan, was directed to pay him deputation allowance at the rate of 20 % for the period he held a higher post in the Regional Passport Office, Lahore, than the one he was holding in his parent department.
2. The Regional Passport Office at Lahore, though a department of the Central Government, was being administered and staffed by the Provincial Government. By letter dated 20-11-1963, the Central Government, however, decided to take over the administration of the said Office, for which purpose it was further decided to retain suitable staff of the Provincial Government working in the Office on the following terms "(1) The above-stated offices will be given the status of subordinate office,
(2) The Provincial Staff working in the above-stated offices will be given the option to come on revised Attached Department Scales of pay as personal concession in the existing posts as well as on promotion to higher posts. The details of revised attached department's scales of pay and various allowances were set out in the office Memo. No. P.
1. No. 2(2) Imp/63, dated 3-3-1963. A statement in respect of each of the above-stated offices showing the details of new posts against which the opted staff will be absorbed subject to their suitability on the basis of their existing scale of pay was attached thereto.
(3) The persons who will be given the scale of pay of Assistant Grade on the basis of their respective existing scale will be re-designated as U. D. C. As absorbed against their posts.
(4) The persons who will be given scale of pay as U. D. C. Will not be promoted as Assistant as there will be no post of Assistant in those scales. Such persons will, however, be promoted direct as Superintendents in accordance with the rules if and when their turn comes.
(5) The members of staff will be liable to transfer from one Zonal Passport Office to other Zonal Passport Office in East and West Pakistan.
The letter further provided that options from the members of the staff be obtained in writing with clear understanding "that options exercised will be treated as final". The scheme was to be enforced from 1-3-1964 but before that the Central Government issued another letter on 4-2-1964 to the following effect
(1) "The staff of the Provincial Government which has been selected will not be treated on deputation and will not draw any deputation pay ; and
(2) Those members of the staff who are permanent will have their lien with the Provincial Government until they are absorbed permanently in the Directorate. Temporary staff will have no lien in the Provincial Secretariat."
Haji Ahmad Jan respondent, a permanent employee of the Provincial Government, who was working in that Office as U. .D. C./Assistant, exercised his option and on-being found suitable was selected and retained by the Central Government. In due course, he was also promoted as Superintendent with effect from 6-1-1973. Soon, thereafter, however, the Central Government, on account of a change of policy, decided on 1-2-1973 to revert ten officials including the said respondent to the Provincial Government with effect from 15-2-1973. The respondent first tried for his continued retention in the Regional Passport Office but failing in that, represented for grant of deputation allowance for the. Period from 1963 to 1973. His plea was, however, rejected on 21-2-1973 for the reason that his reversion was under a policy decision of the Government of Pakistan. The respondent then moved the Tribunal in appeal claiming, inter alia, grant of special pay at the rate of 20 % of substantive pay for the period he had served at the Passport Office under the Central Government.
3. The reasons which the Tribunal gave in support of its decision are that the Central Government's letter dated 4-2-1964 saying that the staff of the Provincial Government selected for retention would not be treated -as on deputation and would not draw any deputation allowance, was of no help because it was only in terms of the then policy that the necessity of grant of deputation allowance did not arise, that even otherwise, the Central Govern--ment's decision on the question of deputation allowance. Contained in letter dated 4-2-1964 bad not been accepted by the Provincial Government who by their letter dated 27-2-1964 bad clarified that though no deputation allowance is allowed but in the case of a Government servant who is appointed to a post carrying higher responsibilities a special pay equal to 20 of his pay in addition to his own pay in his substantive pay scale is allowed and that the decision of the lending authority being binding on the borrowing authority as per instructions at pages 389 and 390 of the O. & M. Establishment, Volume 1, Part I and the respondent having in. Fact been promoted in May, 1964 to the post of Assistant which was a higher post carrying higher responsibilities, he was entitled to the allowance.
Another reason which prevailed with the Tribunal was that the respondent having been reverted unilaterally and without any fault on his part he was entitled to deputation allowance.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Government of Pakistan filed a petition for grant of leave to appeal. The learned Judges of this Court, who heard the petition, appear to have been impressed by , the soundness of the reasoning of the Tribunal and observed that the Central Government's letter dated 4-2-1964 had tempted the respondent to opt for that Government and not to claim deputation allowance because he would be absorbed permanently there and that "if the temptation of permanent absorption had not been given then it is most probably that nobody would have opted for the Central Government". The learned Judges further observed that "the mala fide of the Central Government appears from the fact that no reason has been given as to why these officials were not permanently absorbed when promise to that effect had been given and especially when the posts existed and their work was satisfactory". They expressed the view that "in these circumstances the Central Government was therefore bound at least morally to pay the deputation allowance". They, however, granted leave to further examine as it had been submitted that the decision would affect a large number of officials.
5. 1n support of his contention that no deputation allowance was admissible, the learned Deputy Attorney-General has relied on the Central Government's letter dated 4-2-1964. By this letter it had been conveyed that "the staff of the Provincial Government which has been selected will not be treated on deputation and will not draw any deputation pay". But this decision, as has been rightly held by the Tribunal, had been in the context of the then policy, which envisaged not only the taking over of the selected stab' but also their ultimate absorption in the Central Government. Although the learned Deputy Attorney-General wanted to convince us that there was no commitment to absorb the staff in the Central Government, but we find that a reasonable assurance had been clearly held out in both the letters dated 20-11-1963 and 4-2-1964 by use of the words "the opted staff will be absorbed", "will be re-designated as U. D. C. As absorbed against their posts and "until they are absorbed permanently in the Directorate". The fact that the option made by the staff was to be treated as "final" also implied that the question of their reversion to the Provincial Government was not at all contemplated. In any case, the context in which the decision to disallow deputation allowance had been made in 1963 was no longer relevant on the change of policy in 1973. The nature of the employment under the Central Government of the respondent, who bad been a permanent employee of the Provincial Government and had retained his lien there, in fact remained, on reversal of the policy, that of a Provincial employee working under the Central Government. The question to be examined, therefore, is whether in such a situation a Provincial employee would not be entitled to deputation allowance.
6. The learned Deputy Attorney-General relied on letter dated 15-8-1956 (at page 39 of the paper- book). But this letter is not relevant because it deals with the question of deputation allowance on transfer from one department to another of the same Government. He also relied on S. I. No. 9 appearing on page 16 of Estacode issued by O. & M. Division of the Government of .Pakistan, in which it has been laid down "When a Provincial Government servant is appointed to a post under the Federal Government he becomes a Federal Government servant for the period of his appointment in the Centre, that is, in the post in which he is appointed in the Centre and for the period he remains in the employment of the Federal Government, he is a person serving in connection with the affairs of the Centre.
Therefore, his terms and conditions of service in the Centre must necessarily be governed by the Rules and Orders made by the President."
He, therefore, argued that as the respondent on his appointment under the Central Government had become a Central Government servant and had also been given a scale of pay applicable to Central Government employees, he could not claim any deputation allowance.
7. The terms "deputationist" and "deputation allowance" are no unknown to Government Services. A deputationist, according to the O. & M. Establishment Manual, Volume I (1968 Edition) on page 389 is a Government servant "appointed or transferred, through the process of selection, to a post in a department or service altogether different from the one to which he permanently belongs". It has been further laid down on page 390 (ibid) that: "As a Government servant on deputation retains a lien on the permanent post in his parent office, he is ordinarily governed by the rules of the lending Government in matters of pay, leave, pension; etc., and continues to be under the rule-making control of the lending Government which has a right to recall him. The lending Government accordingly has a right to determine in consultation with the borrowing Government the terms of his employment under the latter, and these terms should not be varied by the borrowing Government without consulting the lending Government."
This shows that the grant of deputation allowance to a Provincial Government servant working under the Central Government is not altogether ruled out but depends on the terms of his transfer.
In this connection the letter of the lending Government, i.e., the Provincial Government dated 27-2- 1964, assumes importance because thereby the Provincial Government had, in reply to the Central Government's letter dated 4-2-1964, made its position clear in regard to the question of admissibility of deputation allowance. The relevant portion of that letter reads : "In the circumstance the permanent staff of the Secretariat will be treated on deputation, while no deputation allowance will be allowed unless the above condition is fulfilled. Thus they would be entitled to extra remuneration only if they are appointed against a higher post t1n the post they were holding in the Secretariat."
It is the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent had been appointed to a higher post. That being so, the respondent was in terms of the Provincial Government's aforesaid letter eligible for deputation allowance.
9. The instruction at Serial No. 9 on page 16 of Estacode, relied' upon by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, apparently applies to the case of a permanent Provincial Government employee appointed on a regular basis under the Federal Government. The pay of such employee, as para. 2 of the instruction says, would be fixed under F. R. 22 or 31 as the case may be. F. R. 22 is applicable to substantive appointments while F. R. 31 to officiating appointments. The instruction could therefore, be invoked had the original policy not been changed. The changed situation brought about by the reversal of the earlier policy and the reversion of the respondent to the Provincial Government does not appear to be controlled by the said instruction.
10. It is to be noted that leave had been granted only on the submission that the decision was to affect a large number of officials. The present case pertains to only one person, that is, Haji Ahmad Jan respondent, and even that has been decided by the Tribunal upon its interpretation of the terms as contained in the letters exchanged between the two Governments. It has not been shown as to how the decision would be of wide applicability.
11. We are, thus, satisfied that no proper ground is made out for interference with the Tribunal's decision. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.