' MUHAMMAD IRAHSD KHAN (MEMBER).-- The relevant background of the present appeal is that on his promotion as Draftsman Class-B, the pay of the appellant was fixed in Grade-11, with effect from 13-5-1976. In November, 1983, however, respondent No, 2 wrote to respondent No,1 that the appellant's pay was wrongly fixed in NPS-11 and, therefore, it was revised and refixed in NPS-7.
Feeling aggrieved thereby the appellant represented departmentally and when received no reply he knocked at our doors for relief.
2. It is the case of the appellant that his pay was rightly fixed in NPS-11 and the action of the respondent refixing his pay in NPS-7 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The stand taken by the respondent-Department is that only such posts for which direct entry qualification is matric with three years Diploma Course in any branch of Engineering, were allowed NPS-11 with effect from 1-5- 1974 while under the recruitment rules in the Military Engineering Service direct entry qualification for Draftsman, Class-B, working in M.E.S. Is matric with certificate in draftsmanship. In spite of this the pay of the appellant was wrongly fixed in NPS-11 by the C.M.A., Karachi, by misappreciating the Government letter, dated 8-5-1974. The error was later on discovered and the Military Accountant- General, Rawalpindi, verified that under the Government letter, dated 8-5-1974 the Draftsmen, Class-B, of the M.E.S. Are not entitled to NPS-11. Accordingly the mistake occurred in the case of the appellant was corrected and instructions were issued for his reversion from NPS-11 to his entitled NPS-7.
3. We have given our anxious thoughts to the submissions made by the parties and carefully perused the relevant record. As said above, the stand of the respondent-Department is that under the Rules Grade-11 can be allowed only to B-Class Draftsman working in the organization where direct entry qualification for the post is metric with diploma in draftsmanship, however, in M.E.S. The qualification for direct entry as B-Class Draftsman is matric with certificate in draftsman and, therefore, Grade-11 is not allowed to the B-Grade Draftsman in M.E.S. The appellant has, however, relied upon the decision of the Department contained in their letter, dated the 9th of March, 1977, which is reproduced below:-- "Subject: Qualification for Recruitment of Draftsmen in various Orgs. And their Refutation of Pay in NPS.
' Re: (a) Government of Pakistan, Min. Of Fin. OM No, F.1(24)NG-Imp-I1/73-284/71, dated 8th May, 1974.
(b) Finance Division (Regulation Wing) OM No, 340-R(II)/76-E-1(1)- NG-Imp-II/76, dated 3rd May, 1976.
(c) Government of Pakistan, Fin. Divn. (Reg. Wing) OM No,F-1(1)- NG-Imp-II/76-624-R(II)/76, dated 16-9-1976.
(1) Government letter mentioned at serial 'a' above allows grant of National Pay Scale to Engg.
Diploma-holders and Tech. Draftsmen employed under Federal Government.
(2) Government letter referred to in para. 'b' above was relaxed and NPS-11 was allowed to those draftsmen recruited direct prior to 24 May, 1976 by competent authority as draftsmen Class 'B' without prescribed educational qualifications (in consideration perhaps of their practical experience etc.)
(3) Promotees to the post of draftsmen Class 'B' will also be granted NPS-11, w,e,f, 08-5-1974, the date of issue of Government letter irrespective of their educational qualifications.
(4) All formations are, therefore, advised to initiate and review all cases in consultation with CMA's concerned."
4. It is clear that by the above decision NPS-11 was allowed in all the formations to the promotees to the post of the draftsmen, Class-B, irrespective of their educational qualifications. Therefore, there appears force in the contention of the appellant that on his promotion as Draftsman Grade-B he was entitled to NPS-11 regardless of direct entry qualification of the post. It could not be explained by the respondent-Department to our satisfaction why different scale of pay is given in the different formations to the promoted Draftsmen, Class-B. Be that as it may, however, it has been laid down by the superior Courts in a number of authoritative pronouncements that a public authority which can pass an order is empowered to vary, amend or rescind that order. But this power to recede can be exercised only till a decisive step is taken. If, however, the order has been given effect to, so that no locus poenitentiae is left, there will be no occasion for exercise of such power. Thus the power to amend or cancel an order cannot be carried into effect if the order has been acted upon. In the present case the pay of the appellant was duly fixed in NPS-11 in 1976 which was being paid to him for about seven years till it was refixed in NPS-7. Therefore, the departmental authorities had no valid power of receding the orders of fixation of the appellant's pay in NPS-11. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is incompetent and unjust.
5. In the result the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is declared to be ineffective, inoperative being incompetent, and is accordingly set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to the pay in NPS (now BPS-11) as originally fixed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.