1. decision This is an appeal brought by provisional Superintendent, Pakistan Rail--way, Multan, under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, against the judgment dated 5th February 1975, passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Accepting the claim of the respondent Muhammad Murad Khan, special ticket examiner, Railway, Khanewal. It is maintained in the appeal that the impugned order dated 5th February 1975 has been passed in disregard of the service rules and regulations and as such is erroneous and cannot therefore be sustained.
2. According to the facts of the case the respondent was appointed P. C. R. Grade-1 in the scale 115-5- 175 on 6th September 1944. He was promoted to a post of T. C. R. Grade-II on 22nd May 1965 in the scale of Rs. 125-5-155-7-225 wherein his pay is said to have been fixed at Rs.
176. He was further promoted to the post of S. T. E. in superior Grade-II on 1Cth October 1958 in the pay scale Rs. 125-5- 175-10-215-15-350 when he was drawing pay of 197 in his previous T. C. R. Grade-II. On his last men- -tioned promotion his pay was fixed by the, Department with effect from dated 10th October 1968, at Rs. 175 as substantive pay plus Rs. 20 as officiating pay plus Rs. 2 as personal pay snaking it a total of Rupees 197 which was drawn by him in the old pay scale, According to the appellant the pay thus fixed by the Department was incorrect and therefore the respondents pay alos1gwith some other promotes of his rank was adjusted in accordance with the instructions in the Director- General Railway letter No. E-34-Ira-3-1-1 dated 6th February 1956 circulated under General Manager (Personnel) Lahore No. 743-E/O-IB (P-1), dated 20th February 1956. Accordingly the pay of the respondent is said to have been adjusted vide letter No. 757-E/46-IX (A. C. M. E.) dated 31st January 1974 as under- SubOfficiatingP. Pay From 10th October 1968175 +10 + 12 =197 p.m.
3. From 1st June 1969175 +20 +9 = 204 --- 1970175 +30 +6 = 211 --- 1971175 +40 +3 = 218 1972 175 +55 +=230 It is further maintained by the appellant that the respondent opted for the National Scale of Pay from 2nd June 1972 and was accordingly fixed at Rs. 305 p.m. as officiating S. T. E. in the scale Rs 200-12-260-15-425 (N. S. P. A.) and that he was granted further increasements as S. T. E. fixing his pay as Rs. 320 p.m. from 1st December 1972, and Rs. 335 from 1st December 1973. Under this calculation it has been pleaded on behalf of the appellant that nothing is due to the respondent beyond the last mentioned amount of pay under the rules.
4. The learned Lower Court after going through the relevant documents containing departmental rules and instructions and calculations of pay made there under by the Department observed as follows in the two concluding paragraphs of the impugned order.
5. According to 2017-R Part II, personal pay is given when responsibility is less or equal as that of the former post and in no other case. In the present case increment is given with personal pay Rs. 175 plus 10 plus 12 P. P. which is patently wrong. According to 2017.8 if responsibility is greater then no personal pay is admissible. The promote will be given next A stage and personal pay is not admissible. Difference of scales indicates` difference of responsibility vide advance Chapter No. 1 page 38 rule No. 12 footnote 2.
6. In view of the above facts and evidence produced before me, I am convinced that the respondent has no case, the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner with order as to costs.
7. After hearing the parties in appeal at length and going through the record, I find no dispute between the parties, on the basic proposition that in case an official holding a post in substantive capacity is promoted to a higher grade carrying higher responsibility then the only provision under which his pay is to be fixed is rule 2017-R and the pay of the official has to be fixed in the higher pay scale in due course without fixing any personal pay in adjustment of the lower scale with the higher one. There is no authentic document on record as having been proved on behalf of the appellant to show that the respondent was still working in officiating capacity in his lower T. C. R. Grade-11 in October 1968, when he was promoted to the post of S. T. E. in the higher T. C. R. Grade-11. The only document relied upon by the appellant is the copy of notice showing the list of officiating T. C. R.
8. Grade-II in addition to some other categories Ex. R-3. But this list does not carry the competent sanction of the authority concerned who should have been the Divisional Superintendent Railways.
9. In the first instance the said list was prepared on 31st January 1973, is over four years after the respondent was promoted to the higher grade which was too late to assess the officiating or substantive capacity of the respondent regarding his previous grade post with scale of Rs. 125-225. secondly, list in question has been signed by the D. P. O. Multan and not by l the Divisional superintendent who was a competent authority in this behalf. This being the position then without going into the V1TeS or legal sanction behind the departmental circular 20th February 1956 Exh. R-1 relied upon by the appellant for the fixation of the respondent pay, there remains no alternative other than the one provided by the rule 201? R H Part (II) according to which the question of personal pay in adjustment of the lower pay scale with the higher pay scale arises only when the new grade post carries less or equal responsibility as that of the former post and not in the case when the higher grade post carries functions of higher responsibility. The post of S. T. E. clearly carries more responsible functions that those performed by a Ticket Collector and for that reason the respon--dent can safely be regarded to have been promoted to a job of higher responsibility in October 1968. In the result his pay should have been fixed in the new pay scale at the proper stage according to the actual pay then drawn by him. In the event of his last drawn pay in his previous scale being Rs. 197 his pay should have been fired in the new pay scale at Rs. 205 and should have increased according to the following table in the grade 125- 5-175-10-215-15-350.
10. Unfortunately the respondent himself did not claim his pay as Rs. 230 from 1st June 1970, He rather claimed this amount of pay with effect from 1st June 1971. And he cannot be given a relief higher than the one claimed by himself. He has prayed to fix his pay according to his own calculation at Rs. 230 with effect from 1st June 1971. The relief claimed by him could safely be granted to him. In this background of the circumstances I do not find any reason to make any exception with the impugned order. The same therefore being upheld the appeal is dismissed. The file may be consigned.