' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 654 of 1995 directed against judgment dated 27;8-1995 of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the TribOal) arises from the facts that Muhammad Ismail respondent No, 1 while employed as Sub- Engineer BPS-11 was drawing pay of Rs,500 per month. On 15-1-1976, he was placed in Selection Grade BPS-16. He was allowed one premature increment fixing his pay as Rs,540 per month. He received the said amount alongwith increments. After about seven years, the premature increment was withdrawn. It so happened that the Tribunal accepted the appeal of Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar (Appeal No,410(R) of 1989) which was exactly identical. On this the petitioner applied for restoration of his premature increment in the same manner as was done in the case of Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar. The Tribunal replying on the decision in the appeal of Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar, Appeal No, 410(R) of 1989 and two other appeals (Appeals Nos. 24(R) of 1992 and 15(P) of 1995) held that the respondent No, 1 was entitled to the benefit of premature increment with effect from the date he was placed in BPS-16 from BPS-11. So, the order of withdrawing premature increment of the respondent No, 1 was set aside and the Federation of Pakistan and others, the present petitioners and respondent No, 2 were directed to fix the pay of the respondent No, 1 herein by allowing premature increment to him with effect from the date the said increment was withdrawn. They were also directed to refund the amount of increment, if any, deducted from the respondent's pay. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has argued that the material on record was misread and the conclusion arrived at was legally not sustainable. Learned Deputy Attorney-General was of the view that the Tribunal was not legally justified on relying the case of Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar simply because the same was not challenged in the Supreme Court. It should have looked into the merits of the case in the light of material before it.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Deputy Attorney-General with care.
We do not agree with him. We find that the cases relied on by the Tribunal are on all fours with the case of respondent No,
1. Benefit of premature increment in similar cases has been given to the other officials of the Department/Government and the impugned judgment is in accordance with the rule of consistency. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has not been able to point out any misreading or non-consideration of material before the Tribunal. The impugned judgment is otherwise a fair order warranting no interference by the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.