MISBAH ULLAH KHAN (MEMBER): --Since these Appeals Nos.57(L), 58(L), 59(L), 60(L) of 1993 contain identical facts and points, these have been heard and disposed of together through this consolidated judgment.
2. At the very outset and start of the hearing, the appellant had referred to two judgments in Appeal No. 450(0) of 1989, decided on 13-5-1991 and identical Appeals Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 70(L)/92, decided on 4-2-1W2 which contained identical facts and points with reference to the instant appeals and had been accepted/decided in favour of the appellants who had been working in Pak Railways against B-17 appointments for a long time on acting charge basis and had reached the maximum of B-17. The learned FST had given the verdict in their favour for move-over to B-18 as the long and continuous appointments of B-17 though on acting charge basis yet did entail allowing annual increments etc. To them. These appointments should have been held by the appellants on regular basis, if the posts did not require to be filled through direct selection/FPSC/Railway Board and which had been delayed by the respondent-Department over a long time over the past years for no fault of the appellants.
3. In Appeal No. 450(0)/89 -- Fazal Karim v Chairman, Railway Board and others, the FST vide concluding paras. 4 and 5 had given the judgment as follows:-- "(4) The basic principle of move-over from one scale of pay to the next higher scale of pay is that a civil servant possessing requisite qualifications for promotion may be given monetary benefit of next higher pay scale in the event of his not getting promotion until he reaches the maximum pay scale enjoyed by him, and he earns the annual increments, as if he is promoted to the next higher pay scale, although the move-over does not count as promotion to the next higher pay scale. In the instant case, the appellant has been denied move-over to BPS-18 on the ground that he was not regularly promoted to BPS-17 but had continued serving in BPS-17 on acting charge basis. While serving on acting charge basis, the appellant was allowed benefit of increments in BPS-17 and pending decision of his regular promotion in BPS-17 he was entitled to the benefit of move---over to the next higher pay scale as if he had been regularly promoted to BPS-17, although he was not entitled to other benefits which would have been admissible to him had he been regularly promoted to or placed in BPS-17. The respondents have not indicated that the appellant was otherwise disqualified from earning move-over to BPS-18.
(5)For the reasons recorded above, the appellant is allowed benefit of move-over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 from 1-12-1989. No order is made for costs."
3. The appellants had submitted that they were holding the present appointments in B-17 on acting charge basis since 7/8 years back and their facts and merits were similar to the said appeals referred in preceding paras. They had mentioned that although the Ministry of Railways and Railways Department had recommended their cases for move-over to B-18, after they had reached the maximum of B-17 w.e.f.1-12-1983/1-12-1984. But the Finance Division had not cleared the cases and they were not allowed move-over to B-18 w.e.f.1-12-1984/1-12-1985.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Department (Mr. Raheemuddin, Advocate) had submitted that prima facie, the appeals were hit by limitation factor, as the appellants had not submitted the instant appeals to the Tribunal in time. This was the main objection by the respondent-Department, otherwise on facts and merits the instant appeals were identical and similar to those already decided by the Tribunal.
5. Since it was matter of pay and allowance and particularly the move---over is given w.e.f. One fixed date and as already held by FST in different cases reported in 1986 PLC (C.S.) 66---Rao M.
Yasin Khan v. M/O Education 1990 PLC (C.S.) 95 and in Appeal No. 40(R)/88--Maj. (R) Anwar Hussain v. Secretary, Establishment Division that such matter relating to pay, allowances, move- over and pension etc. Do not attract limitation as these have accrued from a fixed back date and given rise to a vested right to Government servant to draw such pay and allowances etc.
6. Since the fact and merits of the instant appeals are identical and similar to those already decided by this Tribunal, there are strong reasons and justifications to allow the move-over to B-18 w.e.f. 1-12-1984/1-12-1985 (as the case may be). Accordingly, we accept the appeals and direct the respondent Department to consider their cases for move-over and if there is nothing adverse in their relevant service record, allow them the move-over to (B-18) with effect from the due dates and report compliance within next three months.
7. The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order for costs.