Applicant Nayamatullah Khan was admittedly drawing Rs. 540 p.m. As his salary on 1-1-1975 in N. P.
S. 10 as Driver in Pakistan Railways. His next increment was due on 1-12-1976 but in N. P. S. 10 he had already reached at the maximum by drawing Rs. 540. Hence the Railways fixed his pay on 1-12-1976 at Rs. 550 in N. P. S. I L where there is stage of Rs. 540.
The applicant intends that on 1-12-1976 his pay should have been fixed at Rs. 575 in N. P. S. 11 because on 1-12-1976 he was entitled to get an increment of Rs. 20 and since there was .No stage of Rs. 560 on N. S. P. 10 hence his pay should have been fixed at Rs. 575 in N. P. S. 11 On the basis of this contention, applicant Nayamatullah prayed in his application under section 15-A, I. R. O., 1969 that respondent Divisional Superintendent Railways Karachi be ordered to amend the increment list issued by the letter on 29-11-1979 in his case. And to increase his pay from Rs. 830 in R. N. P. S. 11 to Rs. 870 in R. N. S. P. 12 with effect from 1-12-1979.
3. Parties were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence. I have heard Mr. Iqbal Hussain Jafri counsel for the respondent and the applicant in person.
4. It is an admitted position that in Appeal No. 36/76 decided by this Court on 26-9-1977 the then Presiding Officer of this Court ordered that pay of the applicant should have been. Fixed at ks. 460 in N. P. S. No. 9 on 1-7-1972. Said finding was not interfered by the High Court while deciding Constitutional Petition No. S-56/78 which was directed against said order dated 28-9-1977. 1 therefore, hold that with finding of this Court to the effect that pay of Niamatullah Khan on 1-7-1972 should have been Rs. 460 in N. S. P. No. 9. Said finding has achieved finality in between the parties.
Consequently the Authority was correct in holding that the respondent was entitled to draw Rs. 520 from 1-12-1974 and Rs. 540 from 1-12-1975 in Scale No. 10 where maximum pay was also Rs. 5:10.
6. On 1-12-1976 pay of the respondent was to be fixed in Scale No. 11 because he had reached maximum of scale No. 10 on 1-12-1975. There was no stage of Rs. 540 in scale No. 11 and hence pay of the respondent was to be fixed in Scale No. 11 at s Stage above Rs. 640 as per Railway Board letter No. 72-P.C-1/55, dated 8-7-1975, produced by learned counsel for the appellant, who contended that on 1-12-1976 pay of the respondent was to be fixed at Rs. 550 in the next higher scale without allowing him any increment. I am unable to agree with this contention because as per High Court order dated 19-2-1979 when an increment could not be granted to the respondent in Scale No. 8 his pay automati--cally jumped to scale No. 9 in which he was allowed an increment of f Rs.
20. On the same analogy I hold that the respondent is entitled to get an additional increment of Rs. 25 in Scale No 11 when his pay jumped to that scale after crossing of maximum of Scale No. 10. 1, therefore affirm finding of the Authority that the respondent was entitled to Rs. 575 with effect from 1-12-1976.
7. Revised National Scales of Pay were introduced with effect from. 1-5-1977. After introduction of R.
N. P. S. The dearness allowance was to be merged with the pay on which 10% increase was allowed and then the pay was to be fixed in the existing scale or in the next higher scale as the case may be. In the instant case respondent claimed that his pay on 1-5-1907 should have been Rs. 774 as against Rs. 736 in Scale No. 11 and that his pay on 1-12-1977 should have been Rs. 802 instead of Rs.
760. This assertion of the respondent was not rebutted by the appellant; who failed to adduce any evidence before the Authority despite getting two chances. I have, therefore no reasons to interfere with finding of the Authority that the respondent was entitled to get Rs. 774 from 1-5-1977 and to get Rs. 802 with effect from 1-12-1977. I, therefore, hold that the Authority rightly granted to the respondent Rs. 720 on account o1 deducted wages but the compensation of Rs. 1,440 was exorbitant. 1, therefore, reduce compensation from Rs. 1,440 to Rs. 780. With this modifi--cation appeal of the appellant stands-dismissed.