' HAFIZ-UR-REHMAN (MEMBER).-- In this case the appellant, Salamat Ali Khan, an Assistant in the Office of the Chief Engineer, Highway Department, impugns order, dated 7-5-1981 passed by the respondent (Secretary, Finance Department) and conveyed to him by his office on 19-5-1981 refusing to him and to other Assistants working in non-Secretariat offices the grant of N.P.S.-11 (and N.P.S.-14 to 20 per cent. Of them) as granted to Assistants of the Secretariat w,e,f, 18-5-1980.
2. The appeal is grounded on facts which should be briefly narrated. The Finance Department promulgated the Punjab (Non-Gazetted) Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1972. In the Schedule appended to these Rules, it was shown that Assistant/Head Clerk at serial No, 8 and Assistants in Secretariat Departments and the High Court at serial No, 9, who. Were in different pay scales till then, would, under the Pay Revision Rules, henceforth be in N.P.S.-10. Again, when the Civil Servants Pay Rules were promulgated in 1977 and Pay Scales were revised upwards, in the relevant Schedule Assistant/Head Clerk at serial No, 8 and Assistant in Secretariat Department, Provincial Assembly and the High Court at serial No,9 were both shown to be recipients of the revised N.P.S.-10. It may be mentioned that both in 1972 and in 1977 the above-mentioned posts were carried in the Schedule under the main heading 'Posts Common to Different Departments'. The grievance of the appellant can be said to have started when Finance Department issued its notification, dated 27-5-1980 whereby against serial No,9 the words 'In Secretariat Departments' following the word 'Assistant' were deleted and after serial No, 37 under the main heading "Punjab Civil Secretariat" added as serial No, 37-A showing that Assistant, under the revised dispensation would be in N.P.S.-10 upto 17- 5-1980 and in N.P.S.-11 w,e,f, 18-5-1980. However, this notification was later cancelled and its place taken by the notification of 22-9-1980 whereby the two scales of pay for Assistant (N.P.S.-10 upto 17- 5-1980 and N.P.S.-i1 w,e,f, 18-5-1980) were shown against serial No,9 under the heading "Post Common to Different Departments". This too was later cancelled and replaced by notification, dated 12-1-1981 which elaborated the word "Assistant" against serial No,9 as "Assistant under the Secretariat Departments, Provincial Assembly, Lahore High Court (including Circuit at Bahawalpur) and Board of Revenue and gave these Assistant N.P.S.-10 to upto 17-5-1980 and N.P.S.-11 w,e,f, 18-5- 1980. Once more this notification too was cancelled and in its place was issued notification of 22-1- 1981 which retained all the features of the last notification (of 12-1-1981) and added that w.e.f. 11-1- 1981, 20 per cent of the permanent posts (of Assistants) as well as those temporary posts which have been in existence continuously for more than five years would be in N.P.S.-14. So, this was the final notification in this series and is in the field presently. It is the contention of the appellant that since in the two schedules of 1972 and 1977 against serial Nos, 8 and 9 the two categories i,e, Assistant/Head Clerk and Assistant in Secretariat Departments, etc. Etc. Were bracketed and against that single bracket N.P.S.-10 was mentioned, in the final notification of 22-1-1981 it has to be presumed that the two categories continue to remain bracketed and thus the Assistant/Head Clerk against serial No,8 will also be entitled to N.P.S.-11 w,e,f, 19-5-1980 with N.P.S.-14 for 20% posts. This interpretation is contested by the Finance Department.
3. During the arguments it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the category of Assistants in the schedule was no longer, "Assistant in Secretariat Department, etc." but was now "Assistant under Secretariat Department, etc". The appellant had enjoyed the same grade for 10 years as that given to Assistants in the Secretariat and discrimination between the two categories now was both unjust and unmerited, that Finance Department was placing a wrong interpretation on the whole matter since the department where the appellant was working was also a department 'under' the Secretariat. In so far as interpretation of the notification amending the schedule is concerned, it was stated by learned D.A. On behalf of F.D. That when set of three scales (N.P.S.-10 upto 17-5-1980, N.P.S.-11 w,e,f, 18-5-1980 and N.P.S.-14 for 20% posts) was notified on 22-1- 1981 against serial No,9, the N.P.S.-10 falling after the bracket automatically went up against serial No,8 since it was also applicable to serial No,8 before the amending notification. On the other hand the appellant avers that now no scale is left against the post of Assistant/Head Clerk at serial No,8.
4. This interpretation by the appellant, I am afraid, is not a rational one. No amount of amendment at serial No,9, whether in description of posts or allocation of scale or scales of pay can alter the fact that at serial No,8 the post Assistant/Head Clerk is entitled to N.P.S.-10 as it was before the notification of 22-1-1981. In fact the bracket which the appellant says is meant to combine serial Nos, 8 and 9 in respect of the N.P.S. Against them ensures that serial No,8 continues to carry N.P.S.
10. Besides, who would be better entitled to interpret what was in the mind of the Finance Department when the notification of 22-1-1981 was issued--Finance Department itself or the appellant or this Court ? In fact in this case the Finance Department is not interpreting the sense of the notification but actually explaining it (since the Finance Department itself is the author of it) when it states that the National Pay Scales Nos, 11 and 14 mentioned against serial No, 9 do not apply to serial No, 8.
5. This was so far as interpretation of the notification goes. The appellant also submits that Assistants in non-Secretariat departments are as hard-worked and are expected to be as sensible and experienced as those working in the Secretariat, the Provincial Assembly, the High Court and the Board of Revenue are, therefore, equally entitled to N.P.S.-11 and 14. They may well be, but it is not for this Tribunal to say so. It is for the Governor to decide what scale of pay a certain post will carry on the basis of the importance of its duties and we cannot post arrogate to ourselves his functions arid prerogatives in that respect. This Court can only advise the appellant and his Peers to make a representation to the Governor if they feel that by virtue of their responsibilities they are as much entitled to N.P.S.11 and 14 as the Secretariat Assistants and Assistants in the Provincial Assembly, the High Court and the Board of Revenue. It is not for this Court to express any view on the matter.
6. In view of the above discussions this appeal is dismissed.
' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Salamat Ali Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab through Finance Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondent.
' By virtue of this appeal it has been prayed that impugned order, dated 7-5-1981 passed by the Respondent (Secretary Finance Department) and conveyed to him by his office on 19-5-1981, refusing to him, and to others Assistants working in non-Secretariat office the grant of N.P.S.-1i (N.P.S-14 to 20 per cent. Of them) as granted to Assistants of the Secretariat w,e,f, 18-5-1980 be set aside.
' This appeal was heard by learned Member I who was constituted as Tribunal vide the order of the Chairman under section 3-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
' The learned Member passed a judgment on 26-4-1982 and before the same was announced referred the matter to D.B. As he considered that matter involved legal points of public importance, the same be heard by Division Bench, taking into consideration his detailed judgment also.
' We, therefore, has heard the case at length and have also read the judgment of the learned Member-I, which is on the record of this case and will be read as part of our judgment in this case.
' We need not give the facts of this case once again, as the same have been mentioned in para.2 of his judgment in detail.
' The appellant has contended that appellant being working 'under' the Secretariat viz. In the attached departments is entitled to the benefits duly mentioned through the revised scales in the amending notification. According to appellant the word used againt S.No,9 was in the Secretariat and even then the same was grouped together and given a single and common pay scale with the S.No,8.
' It was vehemently argued that had there been any other intention of the alleged notification then persons mentioned in S.9 should have been switched over or taken to specified post under their specific departments.
' A grievance has been made that Secretary Finance, who is equal in rank to Secretary, L & W had no right to throw away the recommendation of Secretary L & W in which it was said that appellant and others viz. Assistants working outside the Secretariat, were entitled to Pay Scale 11, under the amending Notification. It was further urged that once the Government has removed the disparity amongst the Secretariat and non-Secretariat Assistants and the same treatment was allowed to be continued for ten long years. There was no justification to introduce a formula, which annulled the earlier decision, which was based on equity and good conscience.
' We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments so advanced before us but find no force in these contentions and fully agree with the judgment of the learned Member-I, sitting as Single Bench, so constituted with further grounds as under:- ' Despite the fact that non-Secretariat and Secretariat Assistants were placed in one pay scale, the conversion formula could not be ignored, according to which the Secretariat Assistants were to be placed in N.P.S.-11 and non-Secretariat Assistant in N.P.S.-8 what was done was that in view of the said formula the Punjab Government down graded them in the Secretariat by one step and up- graded the appellant by two steps. This in fact was to disoutrage of the Secretariat Assistants.
' We further find that wherever some of the posts-are grouped as contended, oblique is inserted between different posts and not different Sr. No, The Assistants in non-Secretariat Offices are, for all purposes and intents at par with the High Court as indicated against serial No,8 and not with other posts placed in N.P.S.-10.
' It is also established from the record that Assistants in Secretariat had all along been maintaining separate entity in terms of pay. First of all they were separated from the Assistants of Lahore High Court and Provincial Assembly but later on finding that these offices were equivalent nature, this separation was abolished.
' With regard to malice, it would be sufficient to say that same stands belied when we find appellant was given preferential treatment in 1972 by upgrading of his pay scale of N.P.S.-8 to N.P.S.-10.
' There can be no confusion of the fact Secretariat means "The Secretariat" and not "The Office attached to Secretariat". If we accept the contention of the appellant then this will open the Pandora Box and there will be no end to it.
' In view of above, we explain our full agreement with the judgment of learned Member No,l. With the added grounds so expressed by us.
' The result is, we dismiss the appeal as without being any merits.