' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 17-9-1987 whereby the Service appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Service Tribunal as premature.
2. The petitioner challenged two departmental orders before the Service Tribunal. The one, dated 20-12-1984 was a letter addressed by the Officer on Special Duty in the Office of the Accountant General Punjab to the Superintending Engineer Irrigation, Bahawalpur, seeking certain clarifications with regard to, certain matters concerning the service record of the petitioner and others. The other order challenged by him was dated 11th of June, 1986 from the Irrigation Department addressed to the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Bahawalpur regretting the inability of the Finance Department to agree to the proposals contained in the representation dated 8-12-1985. He sought a relaxation in the Rules with regard to the exercise of option under the West Pakistan (NonGazetted) Civil Services (Pay Revision) Rules, 1959, which was refused.
3. The Service Tribunal formed an impression from such a submission that the matter had been prematurely brought before it as would appear from the following conclusions recorded:-- "These clarifications still remained unanswered and the appellant proceeded to make the representation for verification of his pay in the Secretariat scale. This clearly amounts to admitting the view point canvassed by the Accountant-General in its memo. Attached as an Annexure T. The Government has not so far decided the matter when the appellant proceeded to file the present appeal. This is in fact an attempt to forestall any future action from the authorities. When the case is considered from this angle, then the appeal is rendered incompetent as the authorities are yet to pass the final order. We have asked the learned counsel for the appellant to explain how this appeal is competent? He maintained that since his representation for verification of scale for the Secretariat Group has been turned down, therefore, he can maintain the appeal. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The representation was not directed against any order. This way there is no final order against which appellant can file this appeal."
4. Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the petitioner was entitled to Secretariat Scale of Pay which was wrongfully denied to him. His grievance before the Service Tribunal was, therefore, not premature.
5. It has already been indicated by reciting the facts that by his representation last made, he was seeking relaxation of the Rule and the relaxation having been refused he cannot claim it as a matter of right. The earlier order is not a determinative order but only asking for certain information from the Department concerning the question of fixation of pay as such.
6. In the circumstances, no question of law of public importance arises which may require further examination. As and when a final order is passed adverse to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, he may seek appropriate redress. Leave to appeal is refused.