SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- These are eight petitions for special leave to appeal by the Federation of Pakistan through the Chairman, Pakistan Railways Board, from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal by which the appeals of the respondents were allowed and a direction was given to the Federation of Pakistan that they be placed in grade of Rs.100-4-140 in the consolidated scales of pay of 1962.
2. The respondents were employed as Return Distributors in the office of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Traffic Accounts Branch, of the Railways Department. Prior to 1949, they alongwith record- lifters and record-suppliers were placed in the scale of Rs.30-1-35. In 1949 when the pay scales were revised they were again placed in the same scale as was given to record-lifters and record- suppliers. In 1962 when scales of pay were again revised the respondents were placed in the scale of Rs.95-3-125 whereas the record-lifters and record---suppliers were given the scale of Rs.100-4-
140. The respondents represented against this discrimination. It led to protracted correspondence between the Railways Department and the Ministry of Finance in the Federal Government. The Railways Department supported the claim of the respondents but the Ministry of Finance declined to put the respondents at par in the matter of scales of pay with the record-lifters and record- suppliers. By a letter dated 26-5-1980 the Accounts Officer informed the respondents about the rejection of their representation. The respondents then filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal. The appeals were accepted.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the office memorandum by which the respondents were informed about the rejection of their representation was merely an intimation and not an order and as such it was not appeal-able; further, as the respondents were seeking a higher scale of pay then the one provided in the consolidated pay scales of 1962 their appeal was barred by limitation. In our view both these contentions are without any merit. Admittedly, the respondents were protesting against the pay scale which was given to them under the consolidated pay scale of 1962. They made a representation which was not decided finally till March, 1980. It was only on 26-5-1980 that they were informed about the rejection of their representation. It is difficult to accept that the rejection of representation did not constitute an order. It is not the case of the petitioner that if the terminus a quo for limitation is taken as 26-5-1980 the appeals before the Tribunal would still be barred by time. We would accordingly reject both the contentions.
4. It is then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal should have been directed against the Ministry of Finance and not against the Railways Department. This contention is entirely misconceived. The Ministry of Finance was a party to the appeals filed by the respondents. If therefore any direction was given by the Tribunal it applied to that Ministry as well.
5. No further point was taken in these petitioners. These are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.