ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---The appellant Mr. Abdul Razzaq, a permanent employee of Pakistan Military Accountant-General, Rawalpindi, is working as an Accounts Officer on deputation in the Ministry of Finance, Zakat and Ushr Division, Islamabad.
2. The Audit/Accounts Officer, when deputed to the Ministries/Divisions/Departments, are entitled to the Special Pay at the rate of 20% of the minimum pay of the relevant scale as per Finance Division O.M. dated 2-10-1991. The Finance Division vide para. 5(ii) of its O.M. dated 15-6-1994, placed a bar on Revision of other allowances and Special Pays including House Rent Allowances. They were to be maintained at the level drawn/admissible at the rates as on 31-5-1994.
3. Consequently, the appellant's Special Pay ceased to be as on 31-5-1994.
4. The appellant, therefore, preferred a departmental appeal against such an order on 31-8-1995 which was turned down by the Finance Division vide letter dated 13-11-1995 received by him on 16- 11-1995. The appellant, therefore, preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant appeared in person. He pleaded that impugned order dated 13-11-1995 was mala fide, illegal and unlawful. According to him, Special Pay is one of condition of service on deputation as such any alteration in terms and conditions amounted to reduction in rank for which a show- cause notice was necessary. He cited PLD 1980 Pesh. 29 in which it was held that the terms and conditions of the pay cannot be varied. He submitted that the Special Pay is not the regular emoluments as it is ceased soon after the repatriation of the deputationists to their parent department. As such it is not regular, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of regular allowances.
6. He further pleaded that the bar so imposed on the allowances and Special Pays by the said Finance Division's O.M. proved to be disadvantage to the appellant as it has reduced special pay from 20% to 14.80% of his minimum pay which is against the principle of natural justice. Moreover, it amounted to the minor punishment, which would be unjustified. Lastly, the appellant pleaded that the benefit once allowed to the civil servant as a general Government policy could not be recalled as it had taken legal effect under the principle of "locus poenitentiae" and hence became one of the terms and conditions of service depriving of which would be illegal hence not right in the eye of law.
7. Objections have been filed by the Finance Division. Besides this, Muhammad Ikram, Assistant Economic Advisor also appeared on their behalf. The appeal has been resisted vehemently. It has been contended that the restrictions on the enhancement of allowances and Special Pays vide Finance Division's O.M. dated 15-6-1994 was imposed with the approval in the meeting of cabinet which is binding in any case. The Finance Division, as author of the said O.M. is of the firm view that it includes all types of deputation benefits including the deputation allowance (presently) and deputation pay/deputation special pay (previously). It has further been contended that the additional financial benefits on deputation is allowed for the inconvenience, if any, caused to the employees rather than the performance of duties as claimed by the appellant. They are supposed to serve anywhere as per discretion of the Government.
8. The main issues before us are, whether the deputation is a necessary condition of the terms and conditions of the service? Whether the appellant has really been deprived of deputation allowances, as pleaded by him.
9. Deputation in fact is not one of the essential terms and conditions of service. It is entirely discretion on the part of Government employees. They are not bound under any law to proceed on deputation rather it is their own A choice whether or not to go on deputation. The practice shows that most of the employees prefer to go on deputation to avail the financial benefits attached with the deputation.
10. The O.M. dated 15-6-1994 placed a bar on upward revision of the allowances and special pays including the House Rent Allowances and they are to be maintained at the level drawn/admissible at the rate as on 31-5-1994. This had the approval of the Cabinet as indicated in the comments filed on behalf of the Finance Division. In fact, they were ceased to be at the level as on 31-5-1994. In no way they were reduced. As such the appellant was not deprived of any reduction as such he has no cause for agitation. Had he any? He should have agitated against the said O.M. at that time but he did not do so and accepted it. As such his agitation at this belated - time is uncalled for.
11.Besides this, this was the uniform policy and applied to all employees, he was no exception to that. The deputation in any case as discussed above, was not one of the term and condition of service as believed by the appellant nor deputation allowance was a non-regular allowance as considered by him. As such his stand taken in the memo. of the appeal is not correct.
12.For the reasons recorded above, the appeal having no merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. Parties be informed.