ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): --Appellant Mr. Tayyab Siddiqi, an officer of the Foreign Service of Pakistan, was promoted to BPS-21 with effect from 16-12-1991 along with others, vide letter dated 3rd March, 1993. After relinquishing the charge of the post of Director-General (BPS-20), he assumed the charge of the post of Additional Secretary, Foreign Affairs (BPS-21) on 26th March, 1992 (F.N.) vide Notification dated 14-4-1992. He was appointed as Ambassador of Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Indonesia vide letter dated 6-8-1992 and his terms and conditions were given in order. He was given BPS-20, and accordingly he relinquished the charge of Additional Secretary on 13-8-1992 and assumed the charge of the Ambassador of Pakistan in Jakarta, on 5-10-1992. Being aggrieved with his appointment in BPS-20 instead of BPS-21, he made representation on 30-11-1993 which remained unresponded. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 3-3-1994.
2. We have heard Mr. Sheikh Riazul-Haq, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He argued that in identical cases of M/s. Riaz Hussain Khokhar and Najmuddin A. Shaikh, who were also promoted along with the appellant, when appointed as Ambassadors, were given the benefit of pay in BPS-21 and there is not only discrimination but also violation of section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the appellant is entitled to carry his pay scale in which he was working and his pay cannot be reduced to BPS-20 when appointed as Ambassador.
3. Mr. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, Standing Counsel for the Government, along with Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Section Officer, has not disputed the facts and submitted that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made a reference to the Ministry of Finance so that the appellant be given the benefit of BPS-21 from the date of his appointment till 18-7-1993, the date from which he has been given BPS-21.
4. The comments have been filed by Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which they have taken preliminary objection that the appeal is hopelessly time---barred. Therefore, we propose to dispose of this objection. The appellant in his representation addressed to the Foreign Secretary on 30-11-1993 had clearly stated that before going to Jakarta, he sent a note on 13-8-1992 that he had accepted the appointment as Ambassador with retention of existing rank, and this fact has not been denied at the time of hearing by the departmental representative and, therefore, there was no delay on his part in making a representation. It may also be observed that the appellant is sustaining a recurring loss in his pay which will stay unless it is stopped by the departmental authority and furthermore when the respondent-Ministry of Foreign Affairs have made a reference to the Finance Division, that the appellant be allowed benefit of BPS-21, therefore in such a situation, there is no question of limitation and the objection of the respondent-Ministry is repelled and the condonation application is allowed.
5. The facts given above are not disputed by the respondents. The appellant was promoted on regular basis as Additional Secretary in BPS-21 with effect from 16-12-1991 by order dated 3rd March, 1993 and he assumed the charge of that post on 26th March, 1993 (F.N.) and such notification was issued on 14-4-1992, and continued as such till he was appointed as Ambassador in BPS-20. The question before us is whether appellant could be deprived of his legitimate right of pay in BPS-21 having been promoted on regular basis, on his appointment as Ambassador. The reply is very simple that reduction in pay is a major penalty under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 and that could only be imposed by taking recourse to departmental proceedings for which proper procedure has to be adopted, which factor is missing in this case. The contention of the departmental representative is that the post of Ambassador in Indonesia was sanctioned for BPS- 20 and the department had no alternative but to appoint the appellant in that scale, but this stand is not tenable as the fact is that the appellant was later on absorbed against a BPS-21 post, and that exercise should earlier have been taken and completed. It is pertinent to mention here that under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, a civil servant is liable to serve anywhere within or outside Pakistan in any "equivalent" post under the Federal Government, provided that where a civil servant is required to serve in a post outside his service or cadre, his terms and conditions of service as to his pay shall not be less favourable than those to which he would have been entitled if he had not been so required I to serve. From the above provisions of law, it is clear that the appellant in no circumstances could be put to disadvantageous position with regard to his pay.
Since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should have made a reference to the Ministry of Finance and it clearly speaks that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs nas admitted the claim of the appellant.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be given all the benefits of BPS-21 for the period he remained posted as Ambassador in BPS-20. No order is made for costs.