RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER): --The learned counsel had stated that the appellant had originally been serving on ad hoc basis as Labourer RTE(B-1). Later on his services had been regularised with effect from 8-8-1983 in the same capacity. He had clarified that according to FRs--22/26, the service rendered in the time scale whether held on permanent or temporary basis should count toward increments and accordingly his pay after regularisation of service had correctly been fixed as Rs.480 per month in B-1 by the respondent-Department. During the course of time, his service book had been sent to the Controller, Military Accounts (CMA), where they made the following observation:-- "that the individual has been appointed with effect from 23-8-1983 in BPS-1, his pay was required to be fixed at Rs.440 p.m. i.e. Initial of the scale of pay, whereas his pay has been fixed at Rs.480 p.m.
With effect from 1-7-87 (on revision of National Pay Scales) and annual increments w.e.f. 1-12-1983 has also been granted to the individual and asked to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000 on account of overpayment in Government Treasury vide letter No.20-8-1991 "
Accordingly they reduced the pay of the appellant from Rs.480 p.m. To Rs.440 p.m. After the appellant's service of 8 years and they had asked for recovery of Rs.10,000 of overpayment.
2. The appellant had made a representation on 27-8-1992 and it had been recommended by his Department. But it could not be acceded to by the CMA. As such he had submitted the instant appeal with the FST on 20-3-1994 with the following prayer:-- "Under the circumstances stated above, it is respectfully prayed that impugned order vide Letter No.Pay/M/6027kTE, dated 20-8-1991 and rejection of Appeal/Representation "conveyed through AGE (Army) Murree Letter No.1104-RTE/EI, dated 16-2-1994 received on 20-2-1994 may kindly be declared null and void, mala fide and having no legal effect on the rights of the appellant and appeal may kindly be accepted with costs and the previous continuous Government service rendered by the appellant in the same Department may kindly be counted for financial purpose and all other service benefits."
3. The learned counsel had mentioned that the respondent-Department had correctly fixed his pay under provisions of FRs 22/26 and there was no mistake. The observation of the CMA after 8 years was not correct and it was in violation of the said FRs and recovery of Rs.10,000 from the appellant did not justify and did not have the support of rules. He had requested for acceptance of the appeal and fixation of his pay at Rs.480 with effect from 1-7-1987 without any deduction under the said FRs.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent---Department had clarified that the Department had already correctly fixed appellant's pay under FRs 22/26 and even recommended his case to the CMA for making necessary correction. He had maintained that the Department of QMG, DW&CE had correctly followed the rules and fixed the pay of the appellant at Rs.480 per month with effect from 1-7-1987, because he had already rendered successful service in B-1 in the same Department with effect from 23-8-1983. But the representative of the CMA's Office, Mr. Abdul Ghuffar had stated that previous service in the same time scale only be counted for increments, if it was initially regularised. However, he could not refer to any rule or provide any documentary proof in favour of deduction of pay of the appellant. He could not even explain the correct interpretation and implication of FRs 22/26 and he had remained silent, as the deduction of increment had been made by the CMA inadvertently and through misinterpretation of the said FRs.
5. After hearing the parties and examining the record, we find that the respondent-Department had correctly fixed the pay of the appellant at Rs.480 per month under provisions of FRs 22/26 and the belated action of CMA after 8 years for deduction in his basic pay and refund thereof, was not in conformity with the relevant rules. Accordingly we accept the appeal and allow the same pay to the appellant, as he had been drawing originally without any deduction. It was, however, surprising to observe that the departmental representative and the concerned officials of the CMA who had relegated the substantive pay of the appellant did not know the correct interpretation of FRs 22,/26.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order for costs.