' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19-10-1994 and final order dated 17-5-1995, whereby claim of the appellant for fixation of his pay in accordance with the para. 2(b) of the O.M. Dated 20-7-1992 was rejected.
2. The facts of the, case are that vide O.M. Dated 20-7-1992, WAPDA Authority has introduced two methods regarding fixation of pay of employees in B-1 to B-L5 who have been allowed advance increments on qualification basis, and the employees were required to submit their options within 3 months of the issuance of this O.M. According to the appellant, he submitted his option for fixation of his pay in accordance with the para. 2(b) of the said O.M. And his option was duly forwarded vide letter dated 10-3-1993. But since the option was submitted after the due date prescribed in O.M. Dated 20-7-1992, therefore, it was returned and the appellant was informed accordingly on 2- 11-1994, against which he made a representation on 5-12-1994 to the General Manager (IS) WAPDA Computer Centre (Hqrs), WAPDA House, Lahore, which was also rejected vide order dated 17-5- 1995. Rejection order was communicated to the appellant on 24-5-1995. He, therefore, filed this appeal on the ground that the O.M. Dated 20-7-1992 was not received within time in the office, where the appellant was working. Therefore, he could not exercise his option within the prescribed period. However, the period was further extended for 3 months by the Authority through O.M. Dated 2-51993. Therefore, the option submitted by the appellant which was duly forwarded on 10-3-1993, could not be turned down on the ground that he had not exercised his option within stipulated period of three months, particularly when he had exercised his option before the expiry of extended period of 3 months. It is also contended that the appellant has been given discriminatory treatment in the matter of fixation of his pay whereas in quite identical and similar circumstances his other colleagues were allowed this benefit.
3. We have heard the parties and gone through the record placed before us. The respondents have not furnished any comments and the learned counsel for the respondents has argued the case on the basis of record filed by the appellant. The main arguments of the respondents' counsel is that the appellant had not exercised his option for fixation of his pay within time in accordance with the O.M. Dated 20-7-1992 and he has also failed to exercise fresh option when time for option was extended through O.M. Dated 2-5-1993. Therefore, the option of the appellant for fixation of his pay according to para 2(b) of the O.M. Dated 20-7-1992 cannot be entertained being submitted beyond the limitation period provided for the same.
4. After giving our anxious thought to the submissions of the parties and perusal of the record, we find that the option was obviously submitted by the appellant after date given in the O.M. Dated 20-7-1992. According to appellant he could not submit his option because the O.M. Dated 20-7- 1992 was either not received or reached late in the office where the appellant was working and this fact gets supports by the O.M. Dated 2-5-1993 through which the option date was extended for further period of 3 months from the date of issuance of that O.M. i,e, 2-5-1993. However, the appellant submitted his option which was duly forwarded on 10-3-1995 and during the course of arguments it was admitted by the respondents to have received it on 13-3-1993. Since the option was submitted by the appellant before the issuance of O.M. Dated 2-5-1993 whereby the period was extended for further 3 months, the rejection of his option merely on the ground that he had not exercised the option within period of 3 months from the issuance of O.M. Dated 20-7-1992 is not justified, particularly when the period of option was extended by O.M. Dated 2-5-1993. It seems that the departmental authorities have failed to keep in view the later O.M. Dated 2-5-1993, whereby the period was extended for further 3 months especially for those subordinate offices, where the earlier O.M. Dated 20-7-1992 was either not received or reached late. The contention of the respondents that the appellant has not submitted fresh option when time for option was extended through O.M.
Dated 2-5-1993 has also no force because we find no mention in the O.M. Dated 2-5-1993 that the employees were required to submit fresh option who had already submitted their option before the issuance of this O.M.
5. We are, therefore, of the view that since the option was exercised by the appellant before the expiry of extended period, his option could not be treated as time-barred. Even otherwise, in our view mere technicality of limitation could not be applied in matter relating to fixation of pay because the loss of pay is continuing cause of grievance. In the case in hand the appellant has strong case on merit. When the period of option was extended by the authority through O.M. Dated 2-5-1993 there was no justification to turn down the option of the appellant on 19-10-1994 much after the issuance of O.M. Dated 2-5-1993. The option submitted by the appellant was duly forwarded on 10-3-1993 and admittedly received by the concerned office on 13-3-1993. It is not true to say that the option was without date, and therefore, could not be entertained. We are of the confirmed view that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of fixation of pay provided by the authority in para. 2(b) of the O.M. Dated 27-10-1992 for Which the appellant had opted and entitlement of the benefit to the appellant is also not denied by the respondents during the course of arguments. The denial of the benefit is not only discriminatory but is also against the principles of natural justice.
5-A. For the aforementioned reasons we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated 19-10-1994 and 17-5-1995 and direct the respondents to fix the pay of the appellant in accordance with the para 2(b) of the O.M. Dated 20-7-1992, with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.
6. Parties are informed.