1. WAHEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No. 117 of 1970, dated the 30th June 19 70. By this order, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.
2. The appellant was appointed as a temporary Assistant Clerk on the 5 September 1953 in the scale of Ks. 60-4-100/5-120 and was posted in B & R Provincial Circle, Rawalpindi. During his service, the appellant earned promotion with effect from the 28th November 1958 as officiating Sub -- Divisional Clerk in the scale of Rs. 75-6-105/7-175. He was later on promoted as Accounts Clerk with effect from the 26th December 1961 in the scale of Rs. 100-6-130/7-200.
3. By an application dated the 10th January 1962, the appellant claimed that by virtue of Finance Department's Notification No. 1007-P. Com. 55/39138, dated the Ist July, 1955, he was entitled to receive Rs. 130, per mensem as pay by the grant of a lump sum increase of Rs. 25, over his previous pay with effect from 26th December 1961. He claimed in his application of June 1963 to have his pay fixed at Rs. 137, per mensem.
4. The Finance Department considered his case and came to the conclusion that by promotion to the post of Accounts Clerk his pay had been favourably fixed at Rs. 118 per mensem. His new pay was beneficial to him over his previous pay of Rs. 105, which he was drawing as Sub---Divisional Clerk.
5. The promotion, if any, was from his original post of Assistant Clerk where he was entitled to draw Rs.
6. 92, P.M. On the day he was promoted and by this promotion he had been allowed a benefit of Rs. 26 over his pay in his temporary post.
7. On the separation of N.-W. F. P. And Punjab Province "as separate Provinces, the appellant exercised his option to continue in the service of the N: W. F. P., the area of his last posting.th As the respondents failed to comply with his request, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 117, of 1970, before the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, on the 29th May, 1970, which was dismissed in limine by the Peshawar High Court by order dated the 30th June 1970. The High Court was of the opinion that a civil suit is more expeditious than writ petition.
8. Leave was granted to the appellant by this Court on the 16th April, 1971, to consider the contention that the remedy by way of writ petition is more expeditious and in the circumstances the High Court should not have thrown out the writ petition on this ground.
9. Mr. Abdul Samad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the remedy under Article 98 of the Constitution was more adequate and speedy and the High Court erred in holding that the suit was a more speedy remedy. The contention of the learned counsel appears to be well founded.
10. Mr. Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab has conceded that the remedy by way of suit is not adequate one and that the remedy under Article 98 of the Constitution is speedy and adequate one.
11. Mian Burhanuddin, learned Advocate-General, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar, has half-heartedly supported the view of the High Court. He contended that if this Court is of the opinion that the remedy under Article 98 of the Constitution is adequate, the case should be remanded to the High Court for decision on merits.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court's view that the suit is an adequate remedy in the circumstances of the present case is not correct. The High Court has itself pointed out that the case in dispute is a simple one wherein the Court has. To interpret the rule and has to see whether the pay of the appellant has been rightly fixed. In our opinion, the remedy by way of writ petition is more expeditious and the High Court should not have thrown out the writ petition on this ground.
13. The appellant filed writ petition in 1970. In view of this, we do not propose to send back the case to the High Court for determination of the question as to what pay the appellant is entitled to.
14. Mr. Abdul Samad Khan learned Advocate-on-Record, for the appellant, has referred us to the notification of the Finance Department No. 1007-P. 1 Com. 55/39138 dated the Ist July, 1955. By this notification, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 241 of the Government of India Act, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to order that the following amendments made to the Schedule annexed to the Punjab Subordinate Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1951. The relevant portion of the amendment, which is applicable to the present case, is as under:----- "Under the sub-head "Circle and Divisional Offices" in the Public Works Department, Buildings & Roads Branch, the following shall be substituted for the existing entry regarding Accounts Clerk:- Accounts Clerk:- Rs. 100-5-125/6-155.Rs. 100-6-130/7-:00 (on promotion to this post the official concerned will be given a minimum increase of Rs.25)."
15. It will be seen that under this amendment, on promotion to this post, the official concerned will be given. a minimum increase of Rs.
25. The Department's contention is that the appellant will be entitled to the minimum increase of Rs. 25 on his original post of Assistant Clerk where he was entitled to draw only Rs. 92 per mensem. The contention of the Department is wrong. No such amendment has been made in the above notification. The amendment clearly shows that "on promotion to this post, the official concerned will be given a minimum increase of Rs. 25." In our opinion, this means that he was entitled to the increase of Rs. 25 on the pay he was getting on the day when he was promoted. In view of this, we would accept the appeal and direct the Department to fix the pay of the appellant on the above mentioned basis.