1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Two appeals, one bearing No.41 of 1985 filed by Hashim Ali Khan and another bearing No. 79 of 1985 filed by Shah Muhammad Narejo are being disposed by this common judgment, as the point to be determined in the said appeals is identical.
2. The case of appellant Hashim Ali Khan is that in 1981 when he was working as Stenographer (Grade-10) he was promoted to the post of Head Clerk (Grade-8) and worked in that capacity for a period from 1-2-1981 to 30-9-1983. Meanwhile Provincial Government by notification No.FD(SR- IV)-115/77, dated 15-5-1982 placed the post of Assistant (Grade-10) in Secretariat and non- Secretariat offices of Government in NSP-11 w.e.f. 1-1-1981. In view of the upgrading of the said post of Assistant, the appellant agitated for placing the post of Head Clerk also in Grade-11, praying further that his pay as Head Clerk for the aforesaid period may be fixed in Grade-11 instead of Grade-10. Having failed to get the desired relief at the departmental level, he approached the Tribunal in the aforementioned appeal.
3. The case of another appellant Shah Muhammad Narejo is more or less similar to that of above appellant. While he was serving as Senior Clerk (Grade-6) in 1984 he was promoted as Hear Clerk (Grade-10) and posted at Technical Training Centre, Kotri. Following the upgrading of the post of Assistant, he too like his friend Hashim Ali Khan agitated for fixing his pay as Head Clerk in Grade-11.
4. Somehow he also did not succeed in his efforts and he ultimately filed appeal before this Tribunal as stated above.
5. After hearing the submissions made by both the appellants personally and the arguments of the learned A.A,-G, both the appeals were dismissed by short order, dated 10-9-1986 for reasons to be recorded later on. Following are the reasons in support of the said short order.
6. The submissions made by the appellants are stated as follows:-
(1) That the post of 'Head Clerk' is one and the same as that of 'Assistant' as reflected in the letter No. DL/N/A&CO/6-(23)f 72/717, dated 10th February, 1973 of the Directorate of Labour. Government of Sind and, therefore, with upgrading of the post of Assistant, the post of Head Clerk should be automatically placed in the equivalent grade.
(2) That one Mr. M.M. Malik who was working as Head Clerk, Technical Training Centre, Kotri was transferred and posted as Assistant, Headquarter of Mineral Wing and as such his transfer was indicative of the fact that the posts of Head Clerk and Assistant were one and the same thing.
(3) That in view of upgrading of the post 'of Assistant, other non---Secretariat Officers of Government have allowed Grade-11 to Head Clerks working in the said offices.
(4) That even the Directorate Labour put the post 'of Head Clerk in Grade-11 vide budget estimate for years 1982-83 to 1984-85.
7. The thrust of the appellant's submissions was that with upgrading of the post of Assistant, the post of Head Clerk which was in the same Grade-10, was also automatically upgraded to Grade-11. In order to appreciate this contention it may be useful to reproduce the relevant pare of the Government notification by which the post of Assistant was upgraded. It reads as under:- "I am directed to state that in exercise of the powers conferred by section 26 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, the Government of Sind has decided as under:-
(i) The posts of Secretariat Assistants and non-Secretariat Assistants in N.P.S.-10 shall not be placed in NSP-11."
8. It is clear that the above notification speaks of upgrading of only the post of Assistants in Secretariat and non-Secretariat Offices. The post of Head Clerk which is distinct and separate from that of the Assistant's post does not find mention in the notification. Merely because the post of Head Clerk was also in Grade-10 at the time of issuing of the above notification, is no reason to hold that with upgrading of the post of Assistant, Head Clerk's post also automatically stood upgraded to Grade-11. If this argument were to prevail, then all posts in Grade-10 existing in other Government Offices would be regarded to have been upgraded on issuing of the aforementioned notification. Moreover if both the posts are one and the same thing, there was no reason to give them different names. Obviously each one of them is assigned different functions and duties.
9. It is true that in the letter of Directorate Labour, Sind, dated 10th February, 1973 which has been relied upon by the appellants it is stated that according to the draft recruitments rules the posts' of: Assistants at Headquarters/ Vocational Guidance Unit, Head Clerks at Technical Training Centres /Employment Exchanges/ Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, and Accountant at Technical Training Centres, have been bracketed together as equivalent and Inter--tranferable posts. This was obviously mentioned because all the three categories of posts were at that time in the same grade. Such mention was however not meant to affect their separate identity. So long these posts existed with different names, any change in status of any of them cannot be held as automatic change in status of other of the said posts. It is because these posts were in the same Grade-10, they were bracketed together as equivalent to each other and treated as intertransferable posts. For this reason the post of Head Clerk cannot be held to have been automatically upgraded with upgrading of the post of Assistant.
10. It appears from the record that the appellants did agitate for upgrading of post of Head Clerk on the analogy of the equal status of the two posts but Finance Department did not agree and the post of Head Clerk, despite the upgrading of Assistant's post continued to remain in Grade-10.
11. As for the transfer of Mr. M.M. Malik from the post of Head Clerk to that of Assistant, it may be observed that his transfer was made in 1976 when both the posts were in the same grade. Even otherwise the two posts being interchangeable is no reason for automatic upgrading of Head Clerk's post, in case of the upgrading of post of Assistant. Therefore the above case of transfer is of no help to the appellants' case.
12. The next submission made by the appellants was that following the issuance of the Government notification referred to above the other non-Secretariat offices of Sind Government have allowed Grade-11 to their Head Clerks. They have however not substantiated their assertion by citing any concrete instance. Assuming that other non-Secretariat Offices have allowed Grade-11 to their Head Clerks, that too would be no reason to hold the posts of Head Clerks held by the appellants to have automatically upgraded to Grade-11. For upgrading of their posts, the express order of Government is necessary. They could agitate for upgrading of their posts on that very ground, if they had authentic information that other non-Secretariat offices have allowed Grade-11 to their Head Clerks. In any case the upgrading of their posts (Head Clerks post) can be ordered only by the Government by issuing notification as has been issued for upgrading the Assistant's post. In absence of such order, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Grade-11.
13. Lastly the appellants' submission was that in Budget Estimates for the specified years the post of Head Clerks was shown in Grade-11. It may be pointed out that in this regard respondents have made a categorical denial in their written statement, clarifying that it was a printing mistake which was subsequently rectified by the Finance Department by issuing corrigendum. A photo copy of the corrigendum has also been produced in support of their plea.
14. For the above reasons we hold that the post of Head Clerk is distinct and separate from that of Assistant and as such until it is I upgraded by express order of Government, it cannot be automatically upgraded with the upgrading of the post of Assistant. Accordingly both the appeals were dismissed by short order, as stated above., M. Y. H./96/Lb/S