1. ' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant an Assistant Commissioner retired under M.L.R.-114 was denied selection grade to which he was entitled before retirement and he has accordingly preferred the service appeal.
2. ' The appellant was promoted after the passing of the Higher Revenue Qualifying Examination as a Mukhtiarkar in December, 1948. He was confirmed as Mukhtiarkar in the year 1953. He was allowed to cross Efficiency Bar in the year 1959. He reached maximum of the scale of Mukhtiarkar on 1st December, 1962. Under the then Revision of Pay Scale Rules, 1964 he was entitled to grant of selection grade one year after reaching the maximum of the scale, i. e., on 1st December, 1963, The orders were, however, delayed by the then Revenue Secretary and belated orders were being issued for batches. The appellant continued making representations for omission of his name in the selection grade list, but by the time his grievance could be redressed he was retired under M.L.R.-114 in March, 1972. He was later on not among the lucky ones to be re-instated under M.L.0.-23. The grievance of the appellant is that he was entitled to selection grade as of right prior to the order of his retirement under M.L.R.-114. The question of his not being re-instated in service, therefore, does not arise as he is claiming the salary for the period before retirement and not for the intervening period between retirement and re-instatement since he had never been re- instated.
3. ' It has been admitted in the written statement that Mukhtiarkars were considered eligible for grant of selection grade scale of Rs, 750 per month when they had reached the maximum of the scale and one year had passed since reaching the maximum. Even in cases of retirement one year after reaching the maximum, they were entitled to selection grade pay for the purpose of calculation of their pension. The only objection taken by the respondents to the grant of selection grade to the appellant is that since he had not been re-instated in service under M.L.0.-23 he could not be considered for grant of selection grade even prior to the retirement. The learned A.A.-G. Has not been able to produce any rule or circular in support of this contention. He admits that any policy statement issued by the Government now will not deprive the appellant of a right that accrued to him before his retirement on 1st December, 1963. Nor can the appellant be made to suffer in calculation of his pension on consideration of an event which happened subsequently after his retirement. Such arbitrary orders relating to the rights of retired civil servants cannot be given retrospective effect. Subsequent re-instatement or denial of re-instatement will have no effect on the rights of the appellant that had already accrued long before his retirement in 1972.
4. ' The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order is made as to costs.