ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 24-11-1992.
2. Respondent No. 1 was on deputation with the Finance Division (Military), Pakistan Secretariat No. 2, Rawalpindi. A post of Group Officer fell vacant in January 1989 at Lahore. There being no officer of appropriate grade of Inter-Department Cadre available, respondent No. 2, senior-most officer available, was appointed as Group Officer on 17-1-1.989 on temporary basis. Respondent No. 1, though senior to respondent No. 2, was junior to one Muhammad Aslam, who was also on deputation. On the request of respondent No. 1 he was repatriated to his parent department. He claimed promotion in place of respondent No. 2 who was junior to him in service. As the deputation period of Muhammad Aslam was extended on the request of the Establishment Division, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Group Officer on 11-6-1989 to replace respondent No. 2. It was made clear to respondent No. 1 that this was purely a temporary arrangement and he would be reverted immediately on availability of IDC Officer or other Officer of the Departmental Cadre senior to him. Respondent No. 1 took charge of the post of Group Officer on 15-6-1989 and was allowed benefit of Special Pay of 10% of his basic pay effective from that day. Respondent No. 1 claimed Special Pay from 19-4-1989, when he reported for duty in Lahore, instead of 15-5-1989, when he actually assumed charge of that post. The request of respondent No. 1 was not entertained by the Department. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Federal Service Tribunal allowed his appeal by a majority decision.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the majority judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal has correctly interpreted the Fundamental Rule 17 and the judgment of this Court in 1985 SCM R 1394. According to Fundamental Rule 17 an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of the post with effect from the date when he assumed duties of that post. The petitioners had allowed the allowance with effect from the date when the respondent had assumed the duties of the post. Respondent No. 2 was temporarily promoted as the Senior Officers were on deputation. Respondent No. 1 was promoted on 15th June, 1989, therefore, according to Fundamental Rule 17, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to the Special Allowance from the date prior to his promotion.