RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Professor Ghulam Nabi Khan has challenged by way of service appeal Notification No. Admin/seen pay-1(5), dated 19-3-1991 whereby he was allowed move-over from grade B-18 to B-19 with effect from 1-12-1990.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that he was entitled to get move-over from 1-12-1984 since -he had reached the maximum pay of Grade B-18 on 1-7-1983.
3. The case of the appellant is that he had a brilliant service record and in view of his service he was entitled to get benefit of Grade B-19 under the move-over scheme.
4. The respondents have controverted the claims of appellant in their written objections.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. The appellant, in order to prove his good credentials has produced Professor Nisar Ahmed and Raja Farooq Haider Khan, Member Legislative Assembly ex-Senior Minister Education. He has also appeared as his own witness. Professor Nisar Ahmed has stated that appellant has been performing his official duties with honesty and dedication and showed good results of his subjects.
To the same effect is the statement of Raja Farooq Haider Khan. From the statement of this witness it appears that Raja Farooq Haider Khan was a student and Secretary-General of the College Union in the session of 1969-70 and again he was Incharge Minister Education from 1988 to 1989. Both the periods mentioned by this witness are not relevant as this witness was never associated with the College during the period of 1980 to 1984. Appellant in his statement has stated that he bas been performing his duties efficiently and his move-over has been withheld with mala fide. In A.C.Rs forms reporting officer has to express himself about 35 traits of concerned civil servant. The civil servant has to satisfy his superiors regarding efficient performance of his duties, honesty, dedication and responsibility to shoulder higher responsibilities for promotion. A civil servant enjoying good reputation may be reported average if Reporting Officer is of the opinion that the concerned civil servant is not up to the level, which is necessary for maintenance of service discipline. In order to show service behaviour of appellant an extract from Letter No. 16368, dated 15-9-1979 which was addressed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Authmuqam to appellant may be useful to reproduce below: -- This letter is reflection of the conduct of appellant who was Principal in an Educational Institution and is sufficient to rebut the evidence which appellant has produced to prove his good service behaviour. A person who threatens to resort to unlawful activities of the nature of strikes etc. Cannot claim to have excellent service behaviour. This letter precedes the period in which the appellant was put on average reports. This letter is manifestation of the poor quality of service conduct of the appellant. But for the unfortunate non-observance of the law and the rules the appellant deserved to be packed back home for his indiscipline and extending threats of unlawful activities to the Administration.
7. The average A.C.Rs. Relating to period 1980 to 1984 have not been challenged by the appellant so far. We cannot express ourselves as to the genuineness or otherwise of the reports which were written during the years 1980 to 1984.
8. The appellant has been granted move-over with effect from 1-12-1990. Appellant could file this appeal before the Tribunal if any terms and conditions of service has been adversely affected by the order of the Government. The Notification in question does not affect the terms and conditions of his service. This Notification, rather gives benefits of move-over to appellant from Grade B-18 to B-19. If he feels that he was entitled to move-over from 1-12-1984 he should have proceeded against the non-consideration of his case by the Selection Board within time.
9. The concession of move-over was allowed to different categories of civil servants through Government Order No. FD/8748-8808/83, dated 29-8-1983. In para. 5(ii)(e) of the said Government order the following conditions was embodied: -- "Para. 5(ii)(e) Normal promotion procedure as is observed in case of promotion through the competent authority shall be followed in allowing move-over to basic Pay Scales 19 and 20."
10. The aforementioned Government order was partially modified through a subsequent Government Order No. FD-R/I-(220)/84, dated 23-4-1986. The provisions of para. 5 of the previous Government order were substantially modified. It was provided that in case of move-over to Scale B-19 the competent authority should ensure that the A.C.Rs. Of the concerned employee are generally good. Appellant had earned average A.C.Rs. For the period 1980 to 1984. In the present case we are of the opinion that the Government order dated 29-8-1983 is relevant. The said order provides that normal promotion procedure has to be followed which is observed in the promotion cases. The criterian laid down for promotion in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servant Act, 1976 in section 8 which is reproduced below: -- "8. A civil servant possessing such minimum qualification may be prescribed shall be eligible for promotion to a post for the time being reserved under the rules for departmental promotion in any higher grade of the service or cadre to which he belongs. A post referred to in subsection (1) may be either be a selection post or a non-selection post to which promotion shall be made as may be prescribed--
(a) in the case of a selection post, on the basis of selection on merit, and
(b) in the case of non-selection post, on the basis of seniority-cum---fitness."
11. The promotion of a civil servant under Rule 9 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 is made on the recommendations of the appropriate committee. The Selection Board while considering the case of civil servant for promotion has to consider besides the seniority of the concerned civil servant his fitness to hold a post of higher responsibilities. Any civil servant earning average A.C.Rs. Grading can hardly expect his consideration for promotion from Grade B-18 to Grade B-19. Under the present situation the case of promotion to B-19 of appellant could not be referred to Selection Board as the appellant appears to have lacking the qualification for promotion laid down in the aforementioned provisions of Civil Servants Act and the relevant rules made thereunder. This reason must have prevailed with the Department to withhold the case of appellant for move-over to next higher grade. The Government order of 1983 was partially amended and it was prescribed that the concerned civil servants should have confidential reports which are generally good. This question came for consideration before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Anwar v. The Secretary, Establishment Division PLD 1992 SC 144. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has expressed itself on the expression generally good' as under: -- "However, even with regard to the reasoning in the impugned judgment relating to the connotation of expression `generally good' that should be equated with the technical `good' the refixing of the word `generally' itself conveys that in case of `generally good' would not be taken to its technical extreme. It would not be expected in case of `generally good' that the civil servant should get formally `good' reports. If there is no adverse report against him and he gets `average reports'. If they would have to be treated as `generally good' for purpose of move-over. Because a report `average' cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically so treated and then conveyed to the civil servant as an adverse report. Notwithstanding the grading regarding the average in other aspects of civil service, in the context of more--over expression `generally good' would, among others, apply to mixed sort of reports containing good and average reports. Thus in case of the appellant he had earned two specifically `good' reports. There was no adverse report and he had earned also three average reports. The effect of all these reports was `generally good' reports."
12. In this judgment the appellant had to his credit two good reports and the remaining three reports were average. The Supreme Court was pleased to hold that as there were no adverse remarks against the appellant his two good and three average reports may be taken to have effect of generally good reports. In the instant case the appellant has for the relevant period earned all average reports. The instant case is, therefore, not covered by the Supreme Court decision. We are also fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1992 in the case of Dr. Muhammad Sharif Chattar v. Azad Government wherein it has been held that average remarks visualised under the relevant policy are to be read in the ordinary connotation of the words and the same cannot be regarded to be "adverse remarks". This Service Tribunal in Service Appeal No. 490 of 1991 refused to grant relief to the appellant for move- over to grade B-20 on the ground that the A.C.Rs. Earned by the appellant for four years i.e. 1982 to 1985 were not good or above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to uphold the decision of this Service Tribunal.
13. From para. 3 of the grounds of memorandum of appeal it appears that the appellant had been making repeated inquiry regarding his move-over. It shows that appellant had the notice that he was not being granted move-over to which he claims to have entitlement since 1984. The appellant appears to have taken no step to seek any relief despite refusal or withholding of claims of the appellant within time. The appellant cannot be allowed to agitate this matter at this belated stage.
14. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that this appeal is devoid of any force which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.