' AFTAB AHMAD (MEMBER).---Altaf Ahmad Khalid appellant was appointed as Junior Teacher in Kahuta Research Laboratories (hereinafter called as KRL) in the year 1992 in BPS-16. He worked there from 9-8-1992 to 6-2-1994. In December, 1993 he had been offered the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (B-16) in the Federal Directorate of Education through the Federal Public Service Commission. Having' accepted the offer of appointment, formal letter of appointment was issued by the Directorate of Education on 1-2-1994 and the appellant joined the Directorate on 7-2-1994.
Immediately on joining the Directorate, the appellant made an application for protection of his pay which he was drawing in K.R.L. Before his appointment in the Education Directorate. The request of the appellant was turned down by the Finance Division and the information was conveyed to the appellant vide memo. Dated 8-10-1995. Hence this appeal.
2. The question for determination is very short i,e, whether the pay drawn by an employee of Autonomous Body before his appointment in the Federal Government could be protected. Mr. Zafar Minhas, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant pleaded that there was no gap in-between relieving of the appellant from K.R.L. And joining the Education Directorate. The appellant was relieved from K.R.L. On 6-2-1994 and he joined the Education Department on 7-2-1994. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there were precedents where Government had protected the pay of officers/officials transferred from autonomous bodies to the Federal Government. He therefore claimed protection of pay of the appellant on the basis of the precedents and also under F.R.
22.
3. Standing Counsel Mr. Khalid Abbas Khan, representing the Ministry of Education and Finance Division opposed the claim of the appellant. It was submitted that in December, 1991 the Government had taken a policy decision not to protect the pay of the officials of the autonomous bodies transferred/appointed in Government service. It was further submitted that F.R. 22 has no relevancy to protection of pay of the employees of the autonomous bodies on their joining the service under the Government. As to the precedents quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant where certain teachers of Islamabad Model College were on their appointment in the Federal Government, granted protection of last pay drawn, it was submitted that prior to the policy decision of 1991, the Government had sanctioned such protection but that after the policy decision of 1991 there had been no case where pay of employees of autonomous body on transfer or appointment in the Federal Government was protected.
4. We have gone through the record. Before joining the Federal Government, the appellant had been an employee of the KRL which is admittedly an autonomous body. On appointment under the Federal Government an offer of appointment was issued to him by the Directorate of Education which clearly indicated that he had been appointed in BPS-16 and that he will draw initial pay in that scale'. The appellant accepted the terms of offer and joined the Federal Government on the clear understanding that he will draw pay of their post. Therefore, having accepted the conditions of appointment now he cannot go back to. Claim higher pay under the garb of certain precedents and F.R. 22 which is not at all applicable to the employees of autonomous bodies. F.R. 22 applies to those employees who are already in service and transferred from one department to another. The appellant had been the employee of an autonomous body and the pay drawn by him in the said body could not be protected as per Government policy of 1991. No doubt there had been a few precedents where the pay of the employees of autonomous body on appointment to the Federal Government was protected but all these cases had been prior to the Government policy of 1991 and as stated at the bar by the learned Standing Counsel and the departmental representative that there had been no case after December, 1991 where pay of an employee of an autonomous body on appointment in the Federal Government was protected.
5. For the reasons discussed above, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the appellant. The appeal has no merits and dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.