' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Ch. Altaf Hussain, Retired Divisional Forest Officer has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary, Forestry Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the appellant be directed to be paid in NPS 18 with annual increments becoming due from the period 12-1-1976 to 9-1-1979.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as D.F.O. Range Management in his own pay and grade vide order dated 23-12-1975 of Chief Conservator of Forests (Annexure 'A'). The appellant worked as such from 12-1-1976 to 9-11-1976. The appellant was again posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Rawalpindi in his own pay and grade by Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Department vide order, dated 13th November, 1976 (Annexure 'B') and he worked as such from 14-12-1976 to 13-2-1978. The appellant was againt posted as Divisional Forest Officer South Forest Division in his own pay and grade vide order, dated 23rd November, 1980 by Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore (Annexure 'D'). After attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant proceeded on retirement on 1-7-1982 while he was working as Divisional Forest Officer in his own pay and grade. However, the appellant was given pro forma promotion as Divisional Forest Officer w,e,f, 10-1-1979 vide order, dated 24-9-1983 by Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department. The contention of the appellant is that while he has been working as Divisional Forest Officer from 12-1-1976 to 9-1-1979, carrying NPS 18 and also he was reinstated after suspension (period of suspension 13-2-1978 to 25- 11-1980) from the date of his suspension i,e, 13-2-1978, hence he is entitled to NPS 18, for the period 12-1-1976 to 9-1-1979 (appellant was given pro forma promotion in NPS 18 from 10-1-1979 onward). It has been prayed that the payment of salkry with annual increments and other allowances as admissible under the rules in NPS 18 be directed to be allowed to the appellant for the period 12-1- 1976 to 9-1-1979. The appellant submitted a departmental representation on 23-10-1983. Within the statutory period of 90 days, the respondents have not taken any action. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e, Mr. M. Lqbal Chaudhry, counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.G.
Humayun learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents assisted with the representative of the Department.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the appellant has been working as D.F.O. Against NPS 18 post for the period 12-1-1976 to 9-1-1979 (including suspension period from 13-2-1978 to 9-1-1979), hence the appellant is entitled to be paid the salary with annual increments and other allowances for this period in NPS 18, as the appellant was reinstated in service from the date of his original suspension i,e, 13-2-1978. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan:--
(a) Supreme Court of Pakistan's Judgment:-- ' Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Qazi Abdul Karim 1978 SCMR 289.
(b) Federal Service Tribunal's Judgments--
(i) lqbal Hussain v. Chairman, Railway Board 1982 PLC (C.S.) 484.
(ii) Abdul Majid v. Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Islamabad 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1257.
6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney assisted with the representative of the Department has submitted that if a reference is made to para. 1 of the appeal of the appellant, the appellant has claimed the pay for working as D.F.O. Range, Management, Chakwal for the period from 12-1-1976 to 9-11-1976 and then from 14-12-1976 to 13-2-1978 as D.F.O., Rawalpindi because the appellant was suspended from 13-2-1978 and the appellant remained under suspension for the period 13-2-1978 to 9-1-1979. During the suspension period as the appellant had been reverted to his original post, hence the appellant cannot claim the pay of the higher post of NPS 18 which was not acutally held by him. Thus, claim for the period from 13-2-1978 to 9-1-1979 of the appellant/appellant's counsel is misconceived and not correct. As far as claim of the appellant for the period 12-1-1976 to 9-11-1976 and 14-12-1976 to 13-2-1978, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the Forest Department has already taken the proper action and has issued the orders for required payment to the appellant. Two Notifications have been produced on this account. A Notification, dated 30th April, 1984 has been issued to allow the appellant the salary in higher grade of NPS 18 for the period 15-12-1976 to 16-2-1978 and another Notification, dated 2-5- 1984 has been issued to allow the appellant additional pay of the post of Divisional Forest Officer, Range Management, Chakwal for the period 12-1-1976 to 11-9-1976, as according to the respondents the appellant has actually held the additional charge (not in his own pay and scale) during the period 12-1-1976 to 9-11-1976 as D.F.O., Range Management, Chakwal. It has also been submitted by the respondents that in the latter case according to the instructions of the Finance Department, dated 19-4-1977, the appellant only could be paid for the maximum period of eight months for the additional charge, hence the appellant has been paid accordingly. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the claim of the appellant has been fully met and the appeal be disposed of as infructuous.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has perused both of the Notifications issued by the Forest Department. He has conceded as far as claim for the period 14-12-1976 to 13-2-1978 is concerned and he is satisfied with the notification, dated 30th April, 1984. He has also conceded to the viewpoint of the respondents that the appellant was not entitled for the NPS 18 during the period of his suspension from 13-2-1978 to 9-1-1979. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has objected to the 2nd Notification, dated 2-5-1984, wherein the appellant has only been allowed additional pay for the period 12-1-1976 to 11-9-1976 for eight months only and has not been ordered to be paid for the entire period of 12-1-1976 to 9-11-1976. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Finance Department, Punjab, instructions on the subject, issued vide letter, dated 19th April, 1977, referred to by the respondents, do not debar the appellant for the payment of additional charge beyond eight months and these instructions have been misconstrued and misread by the respondents. The appellant has actually performed the duties of additional charge of D.F.O. In the public interest and he cannot be deprived of the payment of the additional pay for the full period. He has submitted that the respondent No,1 be directed to pay the appellant for the full period of additional charge from 12-1-1976 to 9-11-1976, instead of 12-1-1976 to 11-9-1976 as ordered vide notification, dated 2-5-1984 of respondent No,1.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case as well Now the only disputed period for which the claim of the appellant is pending is from 12-9-1976 to 9-11-1976, the additional charge of the post of Divisional Forest Officer, Range Management, Chakwal, wherein the plea of the respondents is that the appellant could only be paid for a maximum period of eight months only for the additional charge as admissible according to the instructions of the Finance Department. The respondents have referred to the instructions issued by the Finance Department, Punjab, vide their letter No, FD-SR-2(38)70, dated 19-4-1977, wherein it has been mentioned in paras. 3 and 4 that the duration of additional charge was not normally to exceed four months and wherein the duration of additional charge is likely to exceed to the period of four months, prior approval of the authority next above, the appointing authority of the Government servant concerned shall be obtained. The total period for which additional charge can be held shall not exceed eight months. We have perused this letter of the Finance Department carefully and there is no instruction in this letter what should be done if the period of additional charge exceeds eight months and a civil servant is allowed to continue to hold additional charge to perform the duties of a particular post beyond eight months. Thus, instructions of the Finance Department could not be misconstrued and misread in disadvantage of the appellant. The fact remains that the appellant has worked in the public interest as D.F.O. In higher grade of NPS 18 for the period beyond eight months i,e, from 12-9-1976 to 9-11-1976 and the Forest Department could not make any arrangement to appoint another officer to relieve him of the additional charge during this period. When the appellant has worked and performed the duties of higher post of D.F.O.
In the public interest, he cannot be refused the payment for the full period of his additional charge.
Thus, the plea of the respondents that the appellant could not be paid beyond eight months is not convincing and do not pursued us to accept the same. Thus, we consider that the appellant is fully entitled for the pay of additional charge for the period from 12-9-1976 to 9-11-1976 as well and refusal of the respondents not to pay the appellant for this period is unjust and without lawful authority.
9. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that the respondents are directed to pay the appellant for the period from 12-9-1976 to 9-11-1976 as well for holding additional charge of the post of Divisional Forest Officer, Range Management, Chakwal. The appeal is accepted to the extent mentioned above and it is directed that the notification, dated 2-5-1984 of Respondent No, 1, be modified to the above extent also.
' There are no orders as to costs.