' Since Appeals Nos. 452(R) to 457(R) of 1990 are identical in facts and merits these are heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated judgment.
' RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).---The appellant Mr. M. Akram had been working as Economic Investigator (B-16) in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and upon instructions from the President of Pakistan the posts of Economic Investigators and Research Investigations had been upgraded to B-17 and redesignated as Research Officers (B-17) vide Notification dated 24-4-1986. Since the Economist and Planners Group comprising of the posts of Research Officers, Research Investigators and Planners holding qualifications of MA. Economics/MA. Statistics under the Federal Government had been formed Accordingly the appellant/appellants had requested P & D Division through M/O Food and Agriculture to induct/include his/their names in the Economist and Planner's Group as B- 17 officers and in the relevant Gradation List. M/O Food and Agriculture had forwarded their names on 3-9-1986 for the preparation of revised gradation list of B-17 officers in the Economists Group, but their names had been missed from the Gradation List prepared by the P & D Division.
Consequently the appellants had made representation and filed their objections which were transmitted to the P&D Division on 13-12-1987. The P & D Division had Informed the M/o Food and Agriculture that the matter of induction/inclusion of the appellants in the Group and in the Gradation List was under consideration in consultation with the Establishment Division and as soon as the decision was taken, the same would be notified.
2. The P&D Division had again issued another Gradation List which also did not include the names of the appellants and on their representations they were informed that the matter of their inductions was still under consideration with the Establishment Division.
3. Ultimately Establishment Division had informed P&D Division and the M/o Food and Agriculture vide their letter dated 24-9-1989 indicating that the competent Authority had approved 6 posts of Research Officers upgraded (as occupied by the appellants) should be included in the cadre strength of Economists Group and their present incumbents be inducted accordingly. The letter reads as under:- "Subject: INDUCTION OF UP-GRADED RESEARCH OFFICER/PLANNING OFFICER/SURVEY OFFICER IN THE ECONOMISTS GROUP.
' The undersigned is directed to refer to Planning and Development Division's O.M. No,2(2)EG/PD/85, dated 28th January, 1989 on the above subject and to inform that competent Authority has approved that six posts of Research Officer (upgraded) may be included in the cadre strength of Economists Group and their present incumbents b inducted accordingly. These Research Officers will get seniority from the date of their regular appointment to the posts in BPS-17. The Planning and Development Division is also requested to take up the case regarding upgradation of three posts of Research Officersd to that of Assistant Chief BPS-18 separately."
(a) But till December, 1989 no order was issued by P&D Division for induction of the appellants in the Group in utter disregard to the advice of the Establishment Division. M/o Food and Agriculture had informed the Establishment Division of the outcome. Finally the M/o Food and Agriculture had informed the appellants on 17-5-1990 that the P&D Division had regretted their inability to include/induct the appellants in the Group. The letter reads as under:-- ' M/o Food and Agriculture, Islamabad Dated 17-5-1990 ' Subject: REQUEST OF MR. MUHAMMAD ALEEM KHAN, RESEARCH OFFICER, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (PLANNING UNIT) FOR INDUCTION IN THE ECONOMISTS GROUP.
' With reference to Mr. Muhammad Aleem Khan, Research Officer's application addressed to Secretary, Planning & Development Division regarding Induction in the Economist Group and to say that Planning and Development Division to whom the case was referred have regretted their inability for your induction in the Economist Group as the Recruitment Rules notified on 3-10-1984 do not allow such induction."
(b) Accordingly the appellant had made a departmental appeal to the Prime Minister on 14-6- 1990, but no reply had been received and ultimately he had filed the instant appeal on 11-10-1990.
The grounds and prayer of the appeal are as under:-
(a) That 12 Research Investigators including appellants working in Planning Unit, Ministry of Food and Agriculture were up-graded and redesignated as Research Officer on 10-4-1986.
(b) That out of these 12 Research Officers, names of 6 Research Officers, who were holding MA.
(Economics) Degree and fulfilled qualifications and experience, were forwarded to Planning and Development Division on 11-8-1986.
(c) That after long inter-Division Correspondence which continued for more than five years between Establishment, Food and Agriculture and Planning and Development Divisions, it was approved by competent Authority that these 6 posts of Research Officers (upgraded) be inducted in the cadre strength of Economist and Planners Group alongwith their present incumbents vide Establishment Division's O.M. Dated 24-9-1989.
(d) That P&D Division which controls the Group did not accept the advice of the Establishment Division and did not transfer/induct the appellants who were informed of their regret vide P&D Division's Memo, dated 15-9-1990 i.e, impugned order which was illegal, without lawful authority and is liable to be set aside.
(e) That no discrimination should be made with the appellants when the Establishment Division had already approved the induction of the appellants in B-17 in the Economist and Planners Group vide letter dated 24-9-1989, that Planning and Development Division had illegally not honoured the implementation of decision of Establishment Division for promoting their own B-17 and B-18 officers upward leaving aside the appellants and which was mala fide. It was, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 17-5-1990 be set aside and the appellants be ordered to be inducted in the Economists and Planners Group with effect from 10-4-1986, when the appellants had been upgraded/promoted and redesignated as Research Officers (B-17)."
4. The learned counsel had mentioned that the appellants were holding the prescribed qualifications and experience and according to the formation of the Group they should have been inducted in the Group, their names includes in the relevant Gradation List. But on one pretext or the other, the P&D Division had been deferring to induct/include their names in the Group and in the relevant Gradation List, though the Establishment Division had already issued an advice in the favour of appellants on 24-9-1989.
5. The Representatives of the respondent-Division had informed that a summary had been sent to the Prime Minister and a decision was awaited. As soon as instructions were received from the P.M.'s Secretariat and Establishment Division, the cases of the appellants would be decided accordingly. The Representatives had also stated that it was difficult to induct their names in the Group with effect from 10-4-1986, as in the period falling between 1986 and 1993 there had been some changes/promotions of their colleagues and seniors and this would involve administrative difficulty to induct/include their names, otherwise decision would be taken for their induction in the Group and inclusion in the Gradation List with immediate effect. Upon an observation whether the P&D Division after receipt of advice of the Establishment Division of 24-9-1989 had prepared such Gradation List to include/induct their names in the Group? There was no satisfactory answer and this showed that the Division was not inclined to induct/include their names, when the appellants were fully qualified and eligible for induction. Evidently there was a definite element of wilful resistance, mala fide and ill-will of the dealing officials of the P&D Division against the appellants who had unjustly and unwisely been held for induction/inclusion in the Group Cadre. Others and some of their juniors in service had moved up, some were moving up, but appellants had been kept waiting to join the Group/Cadre, even after lapse of approximate 7 years after the Establishment Division had given advice on 24-9-1989.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants had also referred to summary of Establishment Division of 13-2-1992 sent to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, wherein the view points of the appellants had been supported. Relevant extracts from the summary are as under:-- "The rationale behind the above decision was that with the constitution of Economists Group the cadre of Economic/Statistical Investigators became dying cadres and the left overs who could not be inducted as Members of the Economists Group of that time, for one reason or the others, were to be inducted in the Group, as and when their posts were upgraded. To leave them, as such, without giving them prospects of future promotion would have been unjustified and would amount to discrimination. The contention of the Planning and Development Division listed in their endorsement on the Summary, when seen in this perspective is not justified and fear of litigation is unfounded.
13. The above view point of Establishment Division has already been endorsed by the Law and Justice Division. They have further observed that they would not allow divergent stand to be taken by the Government Departments before the Service Tribunal. They have, therefore, not so far appointed any Government Standing Counsel to contest the appeal.
14. In view of the foregoing, the Establishment Division is of the view that the orders of the competent Authority for induction of six upgraded Research Officers of Food and Agriculture Division in the Economists Group be implemented. The appeals filed by the Research Officers in the Federal Service Tribunal would then become infructuous."
7. Under the aforementioned facts and merits and after hearing the parties, we find that the decision/advice of the Establishment vide letter dated 24-9-1989 which had been issued after careful examination and consideration is based on just principles and for sake of justice and fairplay, it should have been followed/implemented by the M/o Food and Agriculture and the P&D Division. Accordingly we accept the appeal and other Appeals Nos. 453 to 457(R) of 1990 and direct the respondent Divisions to follow/implement the advice of the Establishment Division of 24-9-1989 and report compliance within next three months.
8. No order for costs. Parties be informed.