ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant Muhammad Naseem Qureshi has preferred this appeal for grant of deputation allowance with effect from 4-11-1989 till his repatriation to his parent department.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is an officer (B-17) of the Northern Areas Revenue and General Administration (Dy. Commissioner Cadre). He was sent on deputation to the Government of N.-W.F.P. For posting as Private Secretary to a Provincial Minister and he held that post from 12-5-1987 to 3-11-1989. On his repatriation from the Government of N.-W.F.P. The KANA Division requested the Establishment Division to place his services at their disposal for appointment as Section Officer and accordingly he was posted in the KANA' Division as Section Officer on deputation for a period of 3 years with effect from 4-11-1989 vide Establishment Division's Notification dated 15-10-1989. The period of deputation was further extended upto 3-11-1993. Since the terms and conditions of deputation were not settled AGPR withheld the pay of the appellant.
The appellant requested the KANA Division vide note dated 22-3-1990 for settling his terms and conditions and that Division took up the matter with the Establishment Division. After a long exchange of correspondence the Establishment Division conveyed its approval vide O.M. Dated 8- 6-1993 but the word "deputation" was deleted. The appellant made a review petition on 20-6-1993 addressed to the Secretary, Establishment Division but the same was rejected on the ground that the case of the appellant was not covered under FR 9(7).
3. The appellant argued the appeal himself. His contention is that while he was on deputation to the Government of N: W.F.P. He was getting deputation allowance and submitted that the employees of the Auditor---General of Pakistan when posted to the Federal Secretariat get deputation allowance @ Rs.20% and he referred to several cases and submitted that he has been treated indifferently.
4. The Establishment Division have filed comments. They have taken preliminary objections that the appeal is time-barred. On merits it has been stated that no terms and conditions as regards deputation were settled between the appellant and the lending department, and as such he cannot claim that benefit at this belated stage.
5. At the time of borrowing the appellant from his parent department in Northern Areas, it had been agreed by the parent/lending department and KANA Division borrowing department that the services of the officer would be obtained/utilized on deputation in KANA Division with effect from the date of requisition of services on deputation (i.e. With effect from 4-11-1989), as it is evident from the letter of KANA Division dated 2-11-1993 and para. 3 of this letter is reproduced below: -- "3.This Division is, however, of the view that the officer is entitled to the grant of deputation allowance at the prescribed rates on the following grounds:-- (i)He has drawing deputation allowance prior to his posting as Section Officer in the KANA Division with effect from 4-11-1989.
(ii)The terms and conditions of his deputation were agreed between the lending and borrowing Departments subject to the final approval of the Establishment Division.
(iii)The denial of deputation allowance to the officer will be discriminatory in law and fact as a number of other officers in the 'Federal Government are allowed such dispensation."
Since the matter of settlement of deputation allowance and concurrence by the Establishment and Finance Divisions had been held up, till the final letter dated 14-7-1993, was issued after four years and thereafter the appellant had opted to go/join back his parent department in Northern Areas as a result of non-grant of deputation allowance which had primarily been allowed @ 10% of basic pay and even' enhanced to 20% and circulated vide Establishment Division's letter dated 3-12-1990.
Referring to the impugned order i.e. O.M. Dated 14-7-1993, wherein it was stated by the Establishment Division that the appellant's case was not covered under the rules and as such he was not entitled to draw deputation allowance, this has no legal force because neither any reason for refusal had been elaborated and nor the latest instructions issued through O.M. No.1/13/87-R.I., dated 3-12-1990 of the Establishment Division allowing the draw of deputation allowance in general terms had been referred to. The appellant was fully entitled to deputation allowance @ 10% with effect from 4-11-1989 and @ 20% with effect from 1-6-1991 as enhanced vide Finance Division's O.M.
NO.F.1(12)IMP.II/91, dated 19-8-1991, in addition to his other pay and allowances as allowed/drawn by him.
6. The respondents have raised the objection of limitation. AGPR withheld the pay of the appellant and returned the bills unpassed in March, 1990. On receipt of these bills the appellant made an application to the KANA Division, on 22-3-1990 with the request to expedite the finalisation of the terms and conditions of his deputation. Accordingly the KANA Division took up the matter with the Establishment Division and after exchange of correspondence between the two Divisions, the Establishment Division issued O.M. Dated 8-6-1993. The appellant made a review petition to the Secretary Establishment Division on 20-6-1993 but the same was rejected by that Division on merits by O.M. Dated 14-7-1993 and the decision was communicated to the appellant by KANA Division under U.O. Note dated 22-7-1993. The appellant then preferred this appeal on 21-8-1993 and the appeal is within time and the objection of the respondents is rejected.
7. For the reasons recorded above the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above.