' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---The facts leading to this appeal in brief are that the appellant, Sakhi Akbar, was initially working on consolidated monthly contract from 1966 as a Script Writer- cum-Announcer in the Shina Section in the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. Later on, he joined as a Script Writer on regular basis on 1-4-1975.
2. As a result of Memorandum of Settlement it was decided in the year 1974, that where there is no avenue of promotion, such employee shall be entitled to the transfer to next higher scale on completion of every 10 years of service.
3. The appellant reached the ceiling of his pay scale as on 1-12-1978 and became entitled to Scale No, 4 with effect from 1-12-1979 by virtue of grant of certain increments. However, he did not complete the required length of service of 10 years but then he requested to grant him transfer to the next higher scale as he reached the ceiling of Scale No,
3. His case was considered at the higher level, ultimately it was decided to offer him following two options vide letter dated 27-1-1980, to opt one--
(1) transfer to the next higher scale of pay on reaching the ceiling of a scale; and
(2) transfer to the next higher scale of pay on the completion of every ten years' service in an ex cadre post.
' It was made clear in the said O.M. That the option once exercised should be treated as final and irrevocable.
4. The appellant opted option No, (1) i,e, transfer to the next higher scale of pay on reaching the ceiling of a scale. This option was duly forwarded by the Station Director, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Rawalpindi vide its letter, dated 6th February, 1980, to the higher authorities which was duly approved vide letter dated 13-2-1980. Consequently the appellant was transferred to the next higher Scale No, 4 vide order dated 13-2-1980 with effect from 1-12-1979.
5. Reaching the ceiling of the P.B.C. Scale No, 4 on 1-12-1990, the appellant applied for transfer to the next higher Scale No, 4-A. His case was taken up by the Station Director, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Gilgit vide its letter dated 12-3-1992 with the higher authority. As a result, the appellant was allowed P.B.C. Scale No, 4-A vide order dated 5-3-1994, although after a lapse of two years.
6. Thereafter the appellant reached the ceiling of Scale 4-A on 1-12-1994, accordingly, submitted an application dated 12-9-1995 to the higher authorities to transfer him to the next higher Scale No, 5 with effect from 1-12-1995. His case was forwarded to the higher authorities vide letter dated 20th September, 1995. Subsequently, he submitted another application on 14-10-1995. This time his request was rejected by the respondent No, 1 vide order dated 25-10-1995. Therefore, the appellant filed review/appeal to the respondent No, 1 to review his said order but that too was rejected. The appellant, thereafter preferred an appeal dated 13-12-1995 against the rejection order which was not forwarded to the higher authorities on the plea that his request was already rejected by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
7. Having failed in getting the positive response from the higher authorities, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal with the request to declare memoranda dated 25-10-1985, 13-9-1995, 30-11-1995 and 11-1-1996, as illegal, arbitrary, void and without lawful authority.
8. Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant, whereas Mr. Muhammad Siddique, Deputy Controller (Admn.) represented the department. The representative of the department stated at Bar that since the comments have already been forwarded to the Law and Justice Division for vetting and have been not received as yet, therefore, the case be adjourned..
The counsel for the appellant on the other hand asserted that the case was admitted on 7-2-1996, the respondent-department was to submit their preliminary objections at least seven days prior to the regular hearing which was fixed on 1st April, 1996. However, they have failed to submit their comments even on the day of regular hearing i,e, 1st April, 1996. Besides this, the appellant has to come all the way from Gilgit. This does not only involve lot of expenditure, but also inconvenience.
Above all he maintained that it involved a simple matter which needed to be resolved. We found some substance in the arguments of the learned counsel.
9. It may be noted that the case was admitted on 7-2-1996. A notice was issued to the respondent- department on 11-3-1996 to submit their comments at least seven days prior to the date of regular hearing i,e, 1st April, 1996. However, the respondent-department failed to file their comments at the scheduled time. Under the circumstance, and also finding a force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, we decided to hear the case despite the facts, no comments, were filed by the respondent.
10. We have heard the learned counsel, at length, and have gone through the documents before us.
11. We find that the main issue before us is to examine was whether or not the appellant is entitled to his transfer to the next higher scale i,e, Scale No,5 on reaching the ceiling of his present grade i,e, Scale No, 4-A, in terms of the O.M. Dated 27-1-1980, whereby he was given option to opt either of the two and the appellant had opted option No, (1) which had also the approval of the competent Authority.
12. The perusal of the said letter and the relevant correspondence placed on the record show that, he opted option No, (1) which had the approval of the A competent Authority. It was made clear in the said letter that such an option was final and irrevocable.
13. Under the circumstances, he cannot be denied the transfer to the next A higher scale. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant cited and rightly the Supreme Court judgment of Syed Ali Shah v. Ministry of Defence 1994 CLC 369 in which it has been held: "(b) Administrative decision--- ----Public functionaries and Statutory Bodies while dealing with subjects must set justly and fairly in accordance with law and they are bound to stand by their commitments---Failure of public functionaries and statutory authorities to stand by their commitment, would result in undermining confidence of public in such bodies."
14. For the reasons as stated above, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be transferred to the next higher scale i,e, Scale No,
5. We, therefore, accept the appeal and direct the respondent-department that the appellant shall be transferred to the next higher scale i,e, Scale No, 5 with all consequential benefits.
' No order as to costs. Parties be informed.