By his Judgment and order dated 22-12-1986 the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar disallowed the Grievance Petition of Sahibzada Commercial Supervisor (Goods) for the award of increment due with effect from 1-12-1984 as was claimed that he was due for promotion on 14-1- 1984 but his promotion was withheld /delayed for ulterior motives till 31-5-1984 and that he was last enabled to take over the charge of his higher post on 16-6-1984 for no fault on, his part. He claimed that a period of six months shall be deemed to have lapsed before 1-12-1984, in either case if his promotion is deemed with effect from 14-1-1984 when the vacancy occurred or 31-5-1984 when his promotion order was made, and not 16-6-1984 the date of actual taking over the charge of the senior grade post when he was so enabled.
2. After hearing Mr. Ali Hussain Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Khial Muhammad Khattak, Advocate for the respects at some length, it was so posed to them that falling of a vacancy, entitlement for promotion, orders of promotion and actual commencing into operation the orders of promotion through, taking over the charge of the post of promotion are all independent steps and that for purposes of increment it is the actual service for a period of six months after induction into the post of promotion before the Ist of December of a year that a Government servant earns an increment. Besides herein the appellant appears aggrieved from the belated orders of promotion under a claim that he was entitled to promotion with effect from 14-1- 1984 and that he should be deemed to have been promoted on the said date and accordingly placed in the scale of the promoted post and that he was entitled to the emoluments of the promoted post and scale with effect from such date and that accordingly his increment was to fall due with effect from 1-12-1984, but he had, however, not claimed back benefits of promotion with effect from 14-1-1984 in his statement before the Labour Court as well in his representation /appeal for: annual increment before the Divisional Personnel Officer. In fact the appellant was to pray for the award of annual increment due from 1-12-1984 on the pattern of the upgradation of Grade-I stations of Grade-II stations as ordered to take effect from 31-5-198.1 although orders of upgradation were made on 8-7-1984. There were certain officers, namely, Saghir Ahmad, Zahir Shah, Shah Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Feroz and may be some others who had been working as Station Masters at Grade-1 stations and promoted and posted at upgraded Grade-II stations. But in spite of the fact that they had not worked in the promoted pots at graded-II stations with effect from 31-5-1984 they had still been awarded increment with effect from 1-12-1984 although they had not completed six months service to their credit in the upgraded posts before 1- 12-1984. The case of the appellant had on the other hand not found favour with the Railway Administration and in this context the appellant was to agitate the question of discrimination before the Labour Court in Grievance Petition. As already said that the increment is earned after the induction into a certain grade and taking over the charge of the post in the grade to which a period of six months lapses on 30th of November of a year and that since the appellant has taken over the charge of the promoted post on 16-6-1984 to which a period of six months has not lapsed as such he was not entitled to the increment on 1-12-1984 and if the Railway Administration has refused him the increment, he cannot claim it as a right. As far the question of discrimination is concerned, this Court would, nonetheless, deprecate the favouritism extended to certain Station Masters who had not actually worked in the upgraded posts for a period of six months before 1-12-1984 and had still been favoured with accretion of increment on 1-12-1984.
3. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Copy of this judgment may be sent to the General Manager, Pakistan Railway Headquarters Lahore for necessary inquiry and action at his end against Officers concerned in having bestowed unwarranted favours on some Station Masters and having caused heart burning and sense of discrimination in other officials like the appellant.
M.Y.H./51/Lb.N.