1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 16-5- 1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No, 116(L) of 1994 claiming B.P.S. 7 with effect from 9-9-1981, declining the same.
2. ' The brief facts are that the appellant was appointed as A.C. Mechanic in BPS-5 through an appointment letter dated 9-9-1981. It seems that after joining the service and accepting the above post in BPS-5, the appellant made representation to the department that the above post of Mechanic was earlier redesignated as Fitter Grade-II in BPS-7 by letter dated 7-1-1980 and therefore, he should be given BPS-7. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to state a date or month of the year when first time the appellant raised the above plea. Be that as it may, the department granted to the appellant BPS-7 with effect from 20-7-1986 when he was transferred from Faisalabad to Kot Addu. The appellant continued to press his claim for BPS-7 with effect from 9-9-1981. Since the department did not accede to appellant's above request he filed the above service appeal which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. After that he filed a petition for leave to appeal which was granted to consider the appellant's contention noted in the leave granting order.
3. ' In support of the above appeal Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that since the appellant was appointed with effect from 9-9- 1981 against the post of A.C.Mechanic which already redesignated as Fitter Grade-II in BPS-7, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of BPS-7. His further submission was that in any case as the appellant had worked against the post of BPS-7 he was entitled to higher salary because he had discharged higher responsibilities.
4. ' On the other hand, Sh. Zamir Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the appellant had applied for the post of A.C. Mechanic in BPS-5 against which he was appointed, and therefore, the appellant has no legal justification to urge that he is entitled to BPS-7 with effect from 9-9-1981.
5. We are inclined to hold that since the appellant has willingly joined BPS-5 against the post of A.C.
6. Mechanic, he cannot on any basis claim benefit of BPS-7 with effect from the date of his appointment. If the post would have been redesignated after his joining and if he would not have been given the benefit, one could urge that he had legal right to claim the above benefit. But in the instant case according to his own showing he accepted BPS-5 when, according to him, the post was redesignated and BPS-7 was given. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.