1. ' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Appellants two in number have moved this Tribunal through the present appeal against order No,3551/A-12, dated 22-11-1988 of respondents No,5 vide which the decision of respondent No,2 in respect of their representation dated 19-7-1988 was conveyed to them.
2. ' According to the averments in the grounds of appeal, the appellants were confirmed Senior English Teachers with effect from 1-6-1963 to 20-7-1975 in BPS-16. They were selected in the competitive examination of N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission in BPS-17 and served in different capacities from 21-7-1975 to 1-9-1982. Later on, they were promoted to BPS-18 by the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission from 1-9-1982 and Rs,1,350 were fixed as their monthly salary. However- scheme of Basic Pay Scales was promulgated from 1-7-1983 and their pay was fixed as Rs,2,100 on point to point formula and since the appellants were in financial loss due to the said pay, they opted to draw the pay in BPS-17 in pursuance to the Finance Department Instructions No,FD(SR-1)1- 67/82-II, dated 2-2-1984. They are still drawing the same pay and were not allowed to cross the ceiling of BPS-17 i,e, Rs,2,049. In the meanwhile on 26-4-1987 respondent No,3 issued a notification awarding selection grade in BPS-18 to the officers of the lower grade with their respective date of seniority but the appellants were ignored on account of the fact that they had been earlier promoted to Grade-18. Thus their juniors superseded them who have been placed in BPS-19 in move-over. They reached the maximum of BPS-17 on 1-12-1984 and were entitled to the increment in next higher grade on 1-12-1985 as a matter of course but the increment was not allowed to them.
3. A lengthy correspondence took place between the respondents inter se and the appellants apprehend that they will be deprived of the increment in BPS-18 till 1-12-1989. They being aggrieved of the same approached respondent No,4 on 19-7-1988 through a representation which was sent to respondent No,3 who dismissed the same; hence the present appeal on the ground that a civil servant is always entitled to the increment of the grade in which he is serving if he is not suffering from any punishment under the rules. They are performing the functions in Grade-18 but were deprived of the salary/increment of the said grade without any genuine reason. It is the policy of the Government to grant such pay which is beneficial to its employees but the appellants are facing financial loss due to the non-payment of the increments of the grade in which they are performing the duties.
4. ' Respondents submitted the written statement. They made no reply to paras. 1 to 5 of the appeal, in respect of paras. 1 to 5 as well as 7 to 10 of the preliminary paras of the appeal and the same was their response to para. 3 of the factual side of the written statement while towards para. 6 of the preliminary objections it was stated by them that admitted to the extent that they were selected in BPS-18 on regular basis from 1-9-1982 while their counterparts were given selection grade in BPS-18 from 1-7-1985. They are entitled to move-over in BPS-19. Appellants opted to draw their salary in BPS-17 being beneficial to them and they were in no way entitled to be considered for move-over to BPS-19 on reaching the maximum of BPS-17. They were not considered for the award of selection grade in BPS-18 on 1-7-1985 as they were holding BPS-18 on regular basis from 1-9-1982. Towards reply of paras 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the factual side, it was asserted by them that they themselves opted for drawing pay in Grade-17 being beneficial to them and had they been in Grade-17 on regular basis they would have been given selection grade in Grade-18. Their counterparts have not been confirmed in BPS-17 so far.
5. ' Arguments heard and the record perused.
6. It is crystal clear that the purpose of letter No,FD(SR-1)1-67/82-II overnment of N.-W.F.P., Finance Department dated Peshawar, and 2nd ebruary, 1984 was to mitigate the hardship which a Government servant may ace in circumstances when he is promoted/posted in higher grade but the pay of he said grade is lesser than the pay of the lower grade. The intention of the Government is always to reduce the worries of its employees and that is why they were given the option to draw the pay of the lower grade/scale to avoid this financial problem. Law is nothing but a matter of common sense. What the-rules allowed them, the respondents on account of the wrong interpretation and analysis of the rules tried to take it back from them. They had been working against the Grade-18 post and they qualified the examination conducted by the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission for this post. Even otherwise they are entitled to the pay/increment of that grade but since the pay at the time they qualified it was lesser than the pay they were drawing in Grade-17, so they opted, per rules to draw the pay in Grade-17, but in no way they can be deprived of the increment falling due on 1-12-1985 and onwards on any analogy. They are accordingly allowed to draw the increment of Grade-18 from 1-12-1985 onward but they are not entitled to the arrears. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room.