1. ' S.USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This service appeal by leave of the Court has arisen from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 1342-1984 and 16-1-1985, whereby service appeal of the appellant for the grant of special pay denied to him by the Finance Department, was dismissed.
2. ' The appellant was appointed as Technical Assistant (then a Grade-III post) in the Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar on 19-5-1972, on ad hoc basis and was subsequently regularized, vide Office Order dated 31-3-1973. This post was upgraded to Grade-16 and the appellant was placed as such.
3. The appellant was promoted to Grade-17 with effect from 2-12-1980 and posted as Assistant Soil Chemist. The appellant considered himself to be eligible to the Special Pay of Rs,100 which was then authorized to Assistant Soil Chemists or to those holding equivalent posts in the four Provincial Govts. Who were appointed on supervisory posts. So he moved the Authority for the grant of such Special Pay on the basis of the decision of the Provincial Governments. The Authority submitted a favourable proposal in this regard to the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan. The Finance Department turned down the proposal so the appellant filed appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed through the impugned judgment.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Special Pay has been defined in clause (25) of Fundamental Rule 9 as under:-- "(25) Special pay means an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of a Government servant, granted in consideration of-
(a) the specially arduous nature of the duties; or
(b) a specific addition to the work or responsibility; or
(c) the unhealthiness of the locality in which the work is performed."
5. ' In order to establish his legal entitlement to Special Pay the appellant had to prove any one of the requirements prescribed. That has not been canvassed at any stage. Even now it is not the case of the appellant that his case squarely falls in the defined category.
6. ' The Federal Government employee cannot in the matter of emoluments compare himself with employees of Provincial Government, nor can the Provincial Govt. Employee compare himself with the Federal Govt. Employee. The categories are different. The classification is obvious. The reasonableness of it needs no proof. Under the circumstances and foregoing facts there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.