' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This appeal by leave arises from the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 4-2-1984.
2. The facts as given in the leave granting order are that C.M. Sharif respondent was a permanent employee of the Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Wah, and in September 1974 was in Grade 19. He was then deputed to function as Managing Director of the Wah Industries Limited (W.I.L), a subsidiary of the Pakistan Ordnance Factory and a limited company. He worked on that post in Grade 19 from the date he took over as Managing Director, i,e., 16th September, 1974. It was in January 1975 that the Secretary, Wah Industries Limited, wrote a confidential letter to the Chief Administrative Officer, Pakistan Ordnance Factory Board saying as follows:- "The present incumbent (Mr. C. M. Sharif) was transferred to W.I.L. In Grade 19, which is not considered commensurate with the responsibilities of the job. It is, therefore, requested that sanction of POF Board may be accorded to grant Mr. C. M. Sharif NPS-20, as was done in the case of his predecessor."
' The parent lending organization on this reference allowed the respondent pay in Grade 20 as Managing Director, W.I.L. This was done on 8th May, 1975. When the respondent was recalled by the Lending Department he was given Grade 19, the same grade that he enjoyed when sent to the subsidiary organization W.I.L. This aggrieved the respondent who sought relief before the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal as per majority judgment allowed the appeal of the respondent vide its order dated 4-2-1984.
3. Leave to appeal was granted in this case to examine whether the respondent could claim as a matter of right his appointment in Grade 20 on the strength of his being allowed so in W.I.L. While poked in a subsidiary organization.
4. In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that Mr. C.M. Sharif, a Grade 19 Officer of the P.O.F., was sent to W.I.L. In September, 1974. A move was subsequently made by the latter organization to allow the respondent Grade 20 to which the former concurred. This in itself, he contended, would show that the respondent was not promoted to Grade 20 as such but was allowed its pay only. This being so, the respondent could not claim pay in Grade 20 as of right.
Before the Tribunal too, the appellants had resisted the claim of the respondent on exactly the same ground but was squarely met and repelled by the Tribunal and rightly so because on the transfer of the respondent to W.I.L., the terms and conditions of service of the respondent as laid down in the order of P.O.F. Board dated 8-5-1975 did not provide any deputation allowance. This fact, therefore, would show that the respondent was promoted by the P.O.F. To Grade 20 on the reference made by the W.I.L. Thus the P.O.F. Having once promoted the respondent to Grade 20 could not recall the same. The respondent had worked quite satisfactorily in W.I.L. In Grade 20 for seven long years and, therefore, his demotion to Grade 19 was rightly held to be unjustified by the Service Tribunal. We have been given to understand that the respondent has since retired from service.
5. The view that we take in the matter is that the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.