RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).---Appellant Ejaz Hussain Malik had brought out at bar that he had reached the maximum of Pay Scale B-18 on 1-12-1989 by move-over and w.e.f. 1-6-1992 he had been given selection grade B-18 on regular basis. Accordingly under the normal practice he was eligible for next move-over to B-19 w.e.f. 1-12-1992.
2. He had mentioned that his case for move-over had been considered by the Selection Board on 18-4-1993 and they had not recommended move-over to B-19 to the appellant in view of the following shortcomings/objections:-- "While considering the move-over cases of M/s. Muhammad Wazir, Accounts Officer and Ejaz Hussain Malik, Assistant Director (Accounts) of the States and Frontier Regions, the Committee observed that owing to grant of selection grades, their cases were not yet matured for move-over to BPS-19. The Committee decided that their cases may be processed for consideration after one year alongwith the ACR for 1993."
3. The appellant had clarified that one of his colleagues Gul Nawaz Malik who was his junior colleague, had an identical case and had been serving under Establishment Division had been allowed move-over to B-19 with effect from 1-12-1992 vide letter dated 20-1-1994 issued by the Establishment Division (Exh. Page 55). The appellant had also referred to letter dated 1-2-1993 issued by the Auditor-General of Pakistan, whereby the appellant (at Sl. No. 8) and his junior colleague Gul Nawaz Malik (at Sl. -No. 9) both had been given Selection Grade B-18 with effect from 1-6-1992. This showed that he had exactly an identical and similar case as of Gul Nawaz Malik who had been given move-over to B-19 with effect from 1-12-1992, whereas appellant was not.
4. The appellant had submitted that it was mala fide and discriminatory action by the respondent Department by not allowing him move-over to B-19 and allowing the move-over to other colleague in similar situation under the same set of rules/procedures. The representative of the Ministry of Finance; Mr. S.M. Usman, Section Officer could not give a satisfactory reply and justification for allowing move-over to Gul Nawaz Malik and not to the appellant under similar set of rules/procedure? The representative of the Establishment Division Mr. Abdul Hakeem, Steno had explained that Gul Nawaz Malik's case with all facts and figures had been placed before the Selection Committee and was cleared for allowing him move-over.
5. The appellant had mentioned that primarily he had reached the maximum of (B-18) on 1-12-1989 by move-over and when he had been given Selection Grade (B-18) on regular basis with effect from 1-6-1992, virtually he was qualified/eligible for annual increment and also for move-over to (B-19) with effect from next 1st December, because promotions/appointments made on or before 1st June qualified an official for annual increments on following 1st December considering the period of six months or more rendered in the same pay scale equivalent to one year.
6. Under the aforementioned circumstances and after hearing the parties we find that one Gul Nawaz Malik junior to the appellant had reached the maximum of B-18 on 1-12-1991 or before, had been given Selection Grade (B--18) with effect from 1-6-1992 and move-over to B-19 with effect from 1-12---1992; whereas the appellant who had also reached the maximum of pay scale (B-18) much before than 1-12-1991, had been given Selection Grade (B-18) on regular basis with effect from 1-6-1992 had been disallowed move-over to B-19 with effect from 1-12-1992. This was discriminatory and mala fide that the respondent department in identical and analogous situation had not allowed move-over to the appellant with effect from 1-12-1992, when there are same set of rules/procedures for all Government servants and when in the meetings of all Selection Committees, a Deputy Secretary/Joint Secretary from the Establishment and Finance Divisions do participate. Further, that the promotions/appointments made on 1st June or before do qualify an official for annual increment on following 1st December. It is thus virtually meant that the official has served the Department for a period of equivalent to one year making him qualified enough and eligible for annual increment on next 1 December. We, therefore, conclude/hold that the recommendations dated 18-4-1993 of the Selection Committee in para.-3 were discriminatory, void, non-maintainable and unlawful and we direct the respondent division to allow the appeal move-over to (B-19) with effect from 1-12-1992 and with "all consequential benefits, as there was otherwise, nothing adverse in his service record placed before us by the respondents to hold the grant of such move-- over. Ordered accordingly. No order for costs.