' MUHAMMAD ISMAIL (MEMBER).---Appellant Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Akhtar, a Revenue Officer in the WAPDA, has preferred this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay him the arrears of pay of the higher post in BPS-17 he held from 1980 to 1985 although he was in BPS-16. Besides the present appeal the appellant had earlier also filed Appeal No, 63 (L)/93 on 17-3-1993 with the same prayer and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 29-7-1993 remanded the case to the Authority for reconsideration of the matter in view of the observations made therein. On remand the matter was reconsidered by the Authority but his claim for grant of pay in BPS-17 was not accepted vide letter dated 3-10-1994 and the appellant was also informed of the decision whereafter he preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on 26- 10-1994.
2. We have heard Mr. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that the appellant having worked on a higher post of BPS-17 was entitled to the pay of the post as provided in section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in PLD 1986 SC 389. It is also argued that since the Tribunal while accepting the earlier appeal had remanded the case to the Authority, the respondents were bound to honour the judgment of the Tribunal.
3. The contentions raised in the present appeal are more or less the same as were urged in the earlier Appeal No, 63 (L) of 1993. The Tribunal in its judgment dated 29-7-1993, while interpreting the rules did not subscribe to the submissions of the appellant and paragraph 5 of the judgment is relevant, for adjudication of this appeal, which is reproduced hereinbelow: "
5. It is clear from these provisions that the post of Revenue Officer remains in B-16 so long as its incumbent does not pass the prescribed departmental examination. In the present case the appellant passed this examination on 2-1-1985 and he was placed in B-17 with effect from that date by order dated 20-5-1985, which has already been noticed by us. This apart there is nothing satisfactory on record to show that he worked against any B-17 post during the period from 1980 to 1985. Reliance has been placed by his learned counsel on Office Order dated 3-10-1984 which bears out that Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Akhtar appellant while working as Revenue Officer (P)
Chakwala, was transferred in the same capacity to Gujrat as replacement of Muhammad Iqbal Jaffri. It was contended by his learned counsel that since he was designated in the office order as Revenue Officer, it should be presumed that he had been working in that capacity even before that time and that the post was in B-17. We do not feel inclined to agree. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellant has been designated as Revenue Officer in this order, but this certainly is no proof of the fact that the post is in Grade-17. He might have gone with the designation of Revenue Officer, the post was still in B-16 on account of the fact that he had not yet passed the required departmental examination."
' It is thus clear that the post the appellant held was in B-16 and by that time the appellant had not passed the departmental examination and had not achieved eligibility. While interpreting the office order dated 15-10-1984, pressed in aid by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal on the principle of equity remanded the case of the appellant to the Authority with the direction that the case may be reconsidered in view of the abovementioned observations of the Tribunal and the office order dated 15-10-1984. In pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal, the respondent WAPDA reconsidered the matter in the light of the office order dated 15-10-1984 but the claim of the appellant was not found tenable, vide letter dated 3-10-1994 and the contents of the letter read as under: "....In accordance with the decision of the learned Tribunal his request for the grant of higher pay scale from the date of appointment has been reconsidered in the light of a precedent available in the office order dated 15-10-1984 whereby the regular scale of Revenue Officers was allowed to various Revenue Officers from back dates.
' The rules called 'Pakistan Wapda (Power Wing) Revenue Officer Service Rules' were promulgated on 6-10-1970 wherein the method of recruitment was provided for induction to the service. The provision continued to exist in the rules upto 28-4-1977 when the same was changed and it was decided that direct recruitment will be in Grade-16 and direct recruits will be required to pass the prescribed departmental examination. After completion of the probationary period and passing of departmental examination, they may be promoted to Grade-17. As the order dated 15-10-1984 pertained to the officers appointed in the service prior to the said amendment made in 1977 the precedent is not applicable in his case as he was specifically given terms and conditions that Grade-17 will be allowed after passing of departmental examination."
It is thus clear that the appellant did not achieve eligibility at the relevant time for promotion to B- 17 as he had not passed the departmental examination, which was a condition precedent to become entitled for a B-17 post and as soon as he passed the departmental examination, he was allowed B-17. No doubt, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in PLD 1986 SC 389 does take care of the point which is now before us, but the aforesaid decision provides relief only to the eligible persons, which the appellant lacked at the relevant time, and the appellant having been posted in his own grade, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not attracted in this case. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit.
4. Furthermore, the appeal is also hit by proviso to section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as the appellant against the rejection of his claim vide letter dated 3-10-1994 has approached this Tribunal without exhausting departmental remedy, as provided by law.