This writ petition assails the order bearing No, GAI/AAO/AG.Pb./CD/146, dated 4-6-1983, passed by the Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenues, Sub-office, Lahore.
2. The petitioner in this case namely Mr. Tufail Ahmad Qureshi, a retired Dy. Accountant-General earlier filed Writ Petition No, 2803 of 1983, against the Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenues, Lahore, Auditor-General of Pakistan and Pakistan Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, whereby he impugned the order/letter dated 10-8-1982 of Auditor-General of Pakistan concerning his pension. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid earlier writ petition, the petitioner sought to rely upon a certificate issued by the A.-G.P.R. and the A.-G. Punjab. It was reported in writing by the A.-G.P.R. that the letter/certificate being relied upon by the petitioner has been cancelled through the impugned order.
3. In the present writ petition, it has been urged by the petitioner that letter/certificate in question could not be unilaterally cancelled and its alleged cancellation without affording opportunity to show cause to the petitioner was void and illegal. It has also been urged that the letter/certificate in question has been acted upon and, therefore, it could not be withdrawn or cancelled.
4. Mr. Tufail Ahmad Qureshi, petitioner was serving as Assistant Accounts Officer, a Grade-17 post, in December, 1973. He was appointed to officiate as Deputy Accountant-General, Punjab (a Grade-18 post) in his own pay and scale with effect from 5-12-1973. While he was still serving as Deputy Accountant-General, Punjab, in officiating capacity, his services were placed with effect from 5-8- 1974, at the disposal of M/s. Pakistan Environmental Planning and Architectural Consultants Ltd., Lahore, for being appointed as Finance Manager. The terms of deputation concerning pay were that Mr. Qureshi would draw his pay equal to the pay being drawn by him in his parent office plus deputation pay at the rate of 20% or the next higher scale whichever may be less. As the pay of Deputy Accountant-General in Grade-18 plus deputation allowance at the rate of 20% exceeded the minimum of next higher scale, therefore, the petitioner was allowed pay in National Pay Scale 19 while serving as deputationist with M/s. Pakistan Environmental Planning and Architectural Consultants Ltd., commonly known as PEPAC Ltd.
5. While still serving as deputationist with M/s. PEPAC Ltd., the petitioner proceeded on voluntary retirement with effect from 1-7-1977. He was allowed pension on the basis of his appointment in his parent office as DAG. For this purpose he has been treated as Grade-18 officer.
6. The petitioner apprehends that on account of cancellation of the certificate, whereby it was certified that had he not been sent on deputation, he would have continued serving as DAG in Grade-18, he may incur financial loss in the matter of pension and pay. Such apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. Although the petitioner's appointment in the parent office as DAG was made on officiating basis in his own pay and scale viz. Grade-17, nevertheless in view of the provisions of section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the petitioner was entitled to the pay sanctioned for the post of DAG i,e, NPS-18. Section 17 ibid provides that a civil servant appointed to a post shall be entitled, in accordance with rules, to the pay sanctioned for such post. In case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Qazi Abdul Karim, DAG, N.rW.F.P. and another 1978 SC M R 289, it was observed "We are of the view that in this conclusion, the learned Service Tribunal seems to be right.
After all if an employee is promoted to officiate in a higher post, involving higher responsibility, he must be held to entitle to minimum pay of the grade of the said higher office." In case of Mian Muhammad Saeed v. Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways and others 1984 PLC (C.S.) 398, it was found by the Service Tribunal that an officer serving in Grade-19 when appointed to officiate to a post in Grade-20, was further entitled to the periodical increments in Grade-20.
7. Admittedly, no recovery is sought to be made from the petitioner so far as pension is concerned.
Similarly, there can be no exception to the salary which he received from his foreign employers viz. M/s.PEPAC Ltd. in Grade-19 because his pay was fixed in accordance with the terms of his deputation. He was entitled to pay in his parent office viz. Grade-18 plus deputation allowance at the rate 20% of such pay. Pay in Grade-18 plus 20% deputation allowance exceeded the minimum of NPS-19 and, therefore, he was rightly allowed pay by the foreign employer in Grade-19. He has conceded that no steps have been taken by the respondents or the foreign employer for the recovery of the salary paid to him.
8. In the above circumstances, apprehension if any, of the petitioner is misconceived. He has received the pay from foreign employer in accordance with the terms of his deputation and his pension has also been fixed on the basis of his grade in his capacity as officiating DAG. In this view of the matter, even the recall of the certificate in question by the respondents through the impugned order is an exercise in futility and is not likely to affect adversely the petitioner in any manner. He is thus not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and has no locus standi to file the writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but no order is made as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.