SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J---The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 23-6-1996 whereby the learned Tribunal accepted Service Appeal No. 122(R) of 1996 filed by the respondent and allowed him move-.Over from Scale-7 to Scale-8 w.e.f 1-12-1993.
2. Mr. Raja Muhammad Bashir, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners contended before us that in order to earn move-over from Scale-7 to Scale-8 the employee concerned must have in his A.C.Rs. For the last 5 years, inclusive of the year of move-over, generally 'Good' reports while in .The present case the overall grading of respondent in the A.C.Rs. For the period from 1-1- 1989 to 31-12-1989, 1992 and 1993 were 'Average' and only for the years 1990 and 1991 he was rated as 'Good'. The learned counsel, accordingly, argued that respondent, in these circumstances, was not entitled to move-over from Scale-7 to Scale-8 under the rules of P.B.C. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has not impressed us.
3. The relevant rules for grant of move over to the employees of P.B.C. In Scales-5 to 8 are as follows:-- "Criteria for Move-Over:
(2) An employee must fulfil the following requirements for move-over to higher scale:--
(i) He should be a regular employee of P.B.C. And should have completed the following length of service in Scale-6 and above for move-over to Scale-7 and above:-- S. No. PBC Scale to which move-over is due.Minimum length of service in Scale--6 and above.
(1) Scale-7 5 years
(2) Scale-81 2 years
(3) Scale-91 7 years
(ii) His Confidential Reports for the last 5 years, inclusive of the year of move-over, in the existing post/pay-scale are free from adverse remarks: and--
(a) are 'Average' to 'Good' in the case of move-over to Scales-6 and 7;
(b) are generally 'Good' in the case of move-over to Scale-8 and at least 'Good' or above for move-over to Scale-9.
(i.e) No penalty under the relevant regulations was imposed on him during the last 5 years.
(iv) He has not reached his present pay scale by move-over (as move-over is to be allowed only once).
(3) The Selection Committee may postopone consideration of a case: --
(i) if the employee is on long leave or is under suspension, or disciplinary action is pending against him or he is on deputation abroad or posted to an ex-cadre post; or
(ii) his C.R. Dossier is incomplete or some other information is waiting.
4. If a case was postoponed and the employee concerned is subsequently allowed move-over, this will be allowed with immediate effect in cases covered under para. 3(i) above and the qualifying period from the date the move-over was due to the actual date of move-over shall count towards increments in fixation of pay. If the case was postponed under para. 3(ii) above, move-over shall be allowed from the date the move-over was due.
5. The move-over shall not be construed to be a promotion to the post on higher pay-scale but the higher pay-scale will be treated to be an extension of the existing pay-scale of the post held by the employee moved-over.
6. The pay of a P.B.C. Employee who is allowed move-over shall be fixed at the stage next above his existing pay in the lower scale.
7. The P.B.C. Employee allowed the move-over shall not be entitled to any change in the rental ceiling. However, the House Rent Allowance which is calculated with reference to the minimum of the pay-scale shall be payable on the basis of the higher scale to which he has been moved-over.
8. No other allowances and fringe benefits shall be paid on the basis of the higher pay-scale.
9. Canteen Allowance will remain admissible to employees in Scale-6 on their move-over to the next higher pay-scale.
10. This decision would be effective from Ist December, 1984; i.e. All those employees who reached the maximum of their respective pay-scales on or before 1-12-1993 would be eligible for move-over to the next higher scale with effect from 1-12-1984 with financial benefits from 1st December, 1985, i.e. No arrears would be admissible up to 30-11-1985".
The expression 'generally good' used in relation to move-over cases, was interpreted by this Court in the case of Muhammad Anwar v. Secretary, Establishment Division (PLD 1992 SC 144), as under:-- "However, even with regard to the reasoning in the impugned judgment relating to the connotation of expression 'generally good' that should be equated with the technical 'good', the prefixing of the word 'generally' itself conveys that in case 'generally good' the word 'good' would not be taken to its technical extreme. It would not be expected in case of 'generally good' that the civil servant should get formally 'good' reports. It there is no adverse report against him an he gets 'average reports' they would have to be treated as 'generally good' for purpose of move-over. Because a report 'average' cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically so treated and then conveyed to the civil servant as an adverse report. Notwithstanding the grading regarding the average in other aspects of civil service, in the context of move-over expression 'generally good' would, amongst others, apply to mixed sort of reports containing good and average reports. Where there was no adverse report and civil servant had earned also three average reports, the effect of all these reports was 'generally good' reports. Thus in the case of the appellant he had earned to specifically 'good' reports. There was no adverse report and he had earned also three average reports. The effect of all these reports was 'generally good' reports."
The case of Muhammad Anwar (supra) was referred with approval in a later case of this Court reported as Federation of Pakistan v. Qaisar Hayat Khan (1994 SCM R 544), as follows:-- "2. The respondent employed as Electronic Engineer, in BPS-17, in Pakistan Meteorological Department, was denied move-over to BPS-18, with effect from 1-12-1984, on the basis of the decision of the departmental authority. He approached the Tribunal in appeal which was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 20-4-1993, and he was granted the relief prayed for, by him in the appeal. The Tribunal repelled the contention raised by the departmental representative that the respondent had only earned 'average' Annual Confidential Reports in the preceding five years and, therefore, was not entitled to the grant of move-over. The tribunal in fact relied on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Anwar v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and others (PLD 1992 SC 144), wherein it was observed, 'if there is no adverse report against him and he gets 'average reports' they would have to be treated as 'generally good' for purpose of move-over.
Because a report of 'average' cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically so treated and then conveyed to the civil servant as an adverse report."
4. The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly relied on the abovementioned to cases decided by this Court for allowing move-over to respondent. No case for interference with the order of learned Tribunal is made out. The petition is dismissed and leave is refused.