' HIDAYATULLAH KHAN (MEMBER).---This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the respondents who have not taken any action on the departmental appeal of the appellant within the statutory period of 90 days. It has been prayed that the appellant be awarded graded/running pay from the date of passing B.Ed., i,e, 29-11-1993. ,
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the appeal, are that the appellant was appointed as S.E.T.
(Science) on fixed pay on 12-10-1986, vide order of the same date. In 1991 B-15 (Fixed) was changed into BPS-16 and now-a-days the appellant is working in BPS-16 (Fixed). The appellant has been working as S.E.T. In fixed pay since 1986. The appellant has passed B.Sc. In 1986, M.A. (Urdu) in 1991, C.T. In 1986 and B.Ed. In 1993. The appellant submitted a departmental appeal before respondent No, 2 on 25-9-1994 but no reply has been given so far. Hence this appeal.
3. Respondents have filed their reply in which the preliminary objections of competency of the appeal, cause of action and locus standi have been raised. On factual side it has been stated that the appellant qualified B.Ed. On 29-11-1993 but the posts of S.E.Ts. Have been placed in B-16 with effect from 1-6-1991 under the recruitment rules of appointment against S.E.T. Posts are to be made through initial appointments. The departmental appeal of the appellant having no weight has been filed.
' Arguments heard and record perused. Preliminary objections have not been pressed.
' In this case the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the authorities of the superior Court and also on the judgments of this Tribunal where presumptive pay in the time scale has been allowed to those incumbents who are otherwise qualified to be appointed to the post, therefore, by partially accepting the appeal, the appellant is allowed only graded pay from the date he acquired the requisite qualifications i,e,, B.Ed., for the post of S.E.T., with arrears if any from that date. The appeal is partially accepted. This order shall also dispose of the following connected appeals in the same terms from the date they acquired the prescribed qualification, because in all the appeals similar questions of law and facts are involved:
(1) Appeal No, 51/95 Najab Khan v. Secretary, Education, N.-W.F.P. Etc.
(2) Appeal No, 454/94 Ali Haider v. Secretary, Education etc.
(3) Appeal No, 455/94 Shah Jehan v. Secretary, Education etc. (4)" Appeal No, 456/94 Mahboob Shah v. Secretary, Education etc.
(5) Appeal No, 457/94 Anwar Beg v. Secretary, Education etc.
(6) Appeal No, 459/94 Farooq Ahmad v. Secretary, Education etc.
(7) Appeal No, 460/94 Muhammad Ayub v. Secretary, Education etc. ' Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record.