The decision, dated 7-8-1984 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. The facts are that the respondent was appointed as Inspector in scale No.6, on 20-7-1953. In 1974 he was promoted to the post of S.T.E. In scale No.9, and his pay was fixed at Rs.305, Special pay of Rs.25 was also included in his pay increasing the pay to Rs.330 p.m. Since the initial stage of scale No.9, was Rs.332 the pay of the respondent was fixed accordingly. The respondent got fixation of his pay deferred in accordance with explanation 2 of para. 37 of letter No. T-2/3-57-II, dated 20-6-1963 and got his pay fixed on 18-12-1974 after one increment in old pay had fallen due to him. His pay was fixed at Rs.348 by adding one premature increment. On the allegation that the auditor objected to it the pay of the respondent was reduced to Rs.332. The Auditor was examined as R.W.1 but he admitted that in cases of promotion one premature increment could be allowed. He did not say that the respondent could not get his increment. Since para. 37 referred to above allows the incumbents to get their fixation deferred the appellant', did not make any mistake by not fixing the pay of the respondent as' soon as he was promoted to the post of S.T.E. And fixing his pay on 18-12- 1974 after increment had fallen due in the old scale No.6. The appellant, therefore, has rightly fixed the pay at Rs.348, p.m. And) there is justification to reduce his pay to Rs.332. In these circumstances) the learned lower Court was justified in directing that the pay of the respondent be fixed at Rs.348 w.e.f. When it was initially fixed.
3. AS a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismissed the same.
A.E.