' ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).-Consequent to the Ministry of Finance decision, dated 24th July, 1973 to convert 35% posts of the upper division clerks to those of Audit and Accounts Assistants (AAA) in N.P.S.-11, the appellant was appointed as AAA w,e,f, 1st July, 1973. His pay was fixed as under : {{TABLE TEXT}} " Pay drawn in N.P S. Date of promotion Pay in Grade No, 11 on No, 7 as Auditor as A.A. Assistant 1-7- 1973 Rs, 270 1-7.1973 Rs, 275 being next stage in Grade-11 plus Rs, 20 as one premature increment Rs, 295 p.m."
' Later on appellant's pay w,e,f, 1st December, 1973 was fixed at Rs, 315 p.m. After allowing him annual increment in scale 7 of the U.D.C. But keeping his promotion as A.A.A. Intact w,e,f, 1st July, 1973. This was done in accordance with the Finance Division 0. M. No, 3 (2) GazI.M.P./1, dated 14th October, 1975.
2. While the appellant was drawing his pay fixed as at para. 1 above, the benefit of one premature increment allowed him in the pay fixation was withdrawn and his pay reduced to Rs, 295 p.m. w,e,f, 1st December, 1973. The excess amount of Rs, 370 which the appellant had already drawn, was also recovered from his pay. His subsequent appeals bore no fruit.
3. The Auditor-General vide letter, dated 1st February, 1982 and based on the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 31st July, 1980 in Appeal No, 33 (R)/79 (Muhammad Ayub v.
Secretary, Ministry of Finance , has conveed the following decision : that auditors (N.P.S.-7) on their appointment/promotion as 'Audit and Accounts Assistants (N.P.S-11) in the P.A.D. May be allowed the benefit of one premature increment w,e,f, 1st August, 1980. This1 benefit of one increment will be admissible to those who are promoted to Grade-11 on or after 1st August, 1980. It is requested that the pay of all Audit and Accounts Assistants (N.P.S. 11) in P.A.D. May please be regulated accordingly w,e,f, 1st August, 1980."
4. The appellant preferred an appeal on 16th March, 1982 to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance through the Auditor-General on the grounds that his case was identical to that of Muhammad Ayub in Appeal No, 33 (R)/79 and as such deserved similar treatment. Not receiving any reply within the statutory waiting period of 90 days, the appellant filed his present appeal on 24th June, 1982 which is being disposed of by this order.
5. We heard the learned State counsel as well as the appellant. The respondents in their written statement in reply to paras. 6 to 8 of the appeal have this to say : The decision of the Service Tribunal given in one case is not automatically applicable to other cases. The judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No, 33 (R) of 1979 in the case of Muhammad Ayub of Pakistan Militry Accounts Department v. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and others is not applicable to the case of officials of Pakistan Audit Department. However, in view of the said judgment of the Tribunal in the case of officials of P.M.A.D. It was decided that the benefit of premature increment may be allowed to the Auditors of P.A.D. On their promotion as A.A.A. (Audit Accounts Assistant) with effect from 1st August, 1980. These orders were, therefore, given effect from the date following the date of the judgment of the Service Tribunal i,e, 31st July, 1980. The request of the appellant to allow him premature increment w,e,f, 1st July, 1973, i,e, the date of his appointment as A.A.A. Has not been accepted by the Finance Division."
6. It is an admitted position that the case of the appellant is on all fours with that of Muhammad Ayub (appeal No, 33 (R)/79) and deserves a similar treatment. We see no reason why a particular decision of the Tribunal should not be made applicable to P.A.D. Even if Muhammad Ayub happened to be from the P.M.A.D. They are both administered by the Ministry of Finance. It would appear incongruous that the decision of the Tribunal resulting from the letters of the Finance Division should apply only to one department and not to the other. We have highlighted this point elsewhere and held that our decisions should be made applicable by the departmental authorities in other cases of similar nature whether or not every employee has come before us, because in this, way better atmosphere is generated, employees confidence in their department is strengthened, and a good deal of litigation, which is at the cost of primary work, is avoided.
7. We accept the present appeal and order that the appellant shall be allowed same relief as Muhammad Ayub in Appeal No, 33(R)/79.
8. No order as to costs. 1980 PLC (C. S.) 598