MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).---The present appeal is directed against an order, dated 15- 7-1996, whereby the request for reimbursement of the cost of petrol, used by the appellant in his own car, for the period when he was entitled to the use of an official car, was rejected by respondent No,
1. The background of the case is that in 1992 the appellant had filed a Service Appeal No, 382(R) of 1992 for the determination of his seniority and right of consideration for promotion with effect from the date of promotion of his junior. Vide the judgment of 9-2-1993 the said appeal was accepted. The Federation filed civil petition for leave to appeal which was dismissed on 22-6-1993. Consequently the appellant was allowed seniority as demanded by him and he was promoted to (B-21) retrospectively with effect from 17-8-1991. Vide a Notification dated 23-5-1996 the appellant was also allowed the difference of the emoluments received by him and that to which he would have been entitled due to his promotion with effect from August, 1991. The appellant feels that on his promotion to B-21 he becomes entitled to the free use of car for official and private purpose and since he had been utilising his personal car at his own expenses, therefore, he was entitled to the reimbursement of the cost of the petrol so used. Accordingly he filed a representation on 16-4-1996 for the said purpose which was rejected vide the impugned order dated 15-7-1996 on the ground that the reimbursement of petrol ceiling is not covered under the prevailing rules. Hence this appeal.
2. The respondent No, 1 contested the case on the ground that firstly the appellant had already received car maintenance allowance at the prescribed rate, therefore, he was not entitled to the cost of petrol and secondly that the cost of petrol is not reimbursable under the rules.
3. We have listened the arguments of the appellant in person and the representative of the respondent No, 1, we have also perused the record of this case as well as of the previous cases and examined the relevant precedents. The main issues on which the fate of this appeal hinges are two.
Firstly whether a person who has already received the car maintenance allowance was disentitled to demand the reimbursement of the cost of the petrol and secondly whether the cost of petrol can be reimbursed in case of promotion to higher scale with retrospective effect. So far as the first point is concerned, we are of the opinion that if a civil servant was entitled to a particular facility and, instead thereof, he was given a lesser facility, he was definitely entitled to the better facility on refund of the benefit of lesser one. Thus, subject to our discussion in the succeeding paragraphs, we hold that if the appellant was legally entitled to the cost of petrol, he cannot be denied the facility merely on the ground that he had already received the car maintenance allowance. If he can legally get the reimbursement of the aforesaid claim, the same will be permissible subject to the refund of car maintenance allowance.
4. The second point needs detailed elaborations. Under rule 5(ii) of the Staff Car Rules, 1980 the entitled officers of BPS-21, 22 (appearing on the sanctioned strength of the Division) are entitled to the free use of staff car for official and private purpose subject to certain conditions. The main rule consists of the following ingredients that:-
(i) The civil servant must be an entitled officer,
(ii) He must be on the sanctioned strength of the Division,
(iii) The staff car may be available with the Division concerned, (iv)He may forego the car maintenance allowance,
(v) He shall then be permitted the free use of staff car for official and private purpose.
5. The above analysis presupposes that the civil servant concerned, falling within the definition of entitled officer, must be on the sanctioned strength of a Division and that a staff car was available and that the staff car is used by the officer concerned for his public and private purpose.
6. The purpose, of the provision regarding the sanctioned strength, is that, for each officer of the entitled class appearing on the sanctioned strength of the Division, a staff car is always made available. This would mean that if an officer was not on the sanctioned strength of the Division as an entitled officer, but he had worked in a junior capacity and was declared to the benefit of senior post, or was allowed the financial benefits only against a supernumerary post, such a post cannot be considered to be on the sanctioned strength of a Division. The second requirement about the availability of the staff car denotes that the facility will be allowed only if a staff car was available, otherwise the officer will be entitled to the car maintenance allowance. Reference in this context can be made of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 13 and 14 of 1996, annexed to the appeal and relied upon by the appellant himself. Thus the law provides for the entitlement of an entitled officer to use the staff car, if available. There'is no-provision nor it can be interpreted that if a staff car is not so available, the personal car will be deemed to be a staff car. The third requirement of the relevant rules is the free use of staff car for public and private purpose which means that the staff car can be used at the cost of the Federation. As stated earlier a private car can neither be presumed to be a staff car nor it can be used as a staff car at public expenses.
Thus, we have to hold that the entitlement of the appellant for reimbursement of petrol consumed as a private car since 1991 is not supported by any provisions of Law, Rules or instructions.
7. The appellant, being conscious of the provision of the rules as aforesaid, has based his claim of two precedents. Firstly he has alleged in para. 16 of memorandum of appeal that reimbursement of petrol was allowed by the Finance Division to Justices Ali Madad Shah. The office Memo. dated 15- 8-1993 relating to the said precedent is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Subject: MAINTENANCE/FUEL CHARGES INSTEAD OF OFFICIAL TRANSPORT.
The undersigned is directed to refer the Law and Justice Division's U.O. No, F.49(6)/91-All, dated 7-7- 1993 on the above subject and to say that the case has been examined in this Division at appropriate level. The Finance Division is of the view that the actual cost of petrol, equal to his entitlement, may be refunded to Mr. Justice (Retd.) Ally Madad Shah for the period in question; subject to the production of vouchers. It is, however, requested that it may not be quoted as precedent in future cases, if any."
The perusal of the above O.M. shows that the reimbursement was not approved for the entire consumption upto the ceiling of the entitled officer but two conditions were imposed therewith.
Firstly, that the actual cost of petrol may be refunded to the said officer on production of vouchers, and secondly that it may not be quoted as a precedent. The appellant has not stated how much petrol was consumed by him during the period in question nor the exact quantity has been specified. Even the exact claim for reimbursement has not been mentioned specifically, as required under Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the said precedent was within the knowledge of the appellant, he should have furnished the copies of vouchers along with the departmental appeal as well as with the service appeal and should have prayed for the recovery of specific amount so spent. In the absence of any specific amount claimed for reimbursement the said precedent cannot be applied to the case of the appellant. It may also be mentioned that the said Office Memo. has stated that it was a case of special nature and was not to be quoted in future cases. One irregularity does not become a precedent for another one, similarly one instance of relaxation of Rules cannot be demanded as a precedent for another one.
8. The appellant also relies on para. 17 of the memorandum of appeal on the case of Nazir Ahmed Chaudhry as decided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 13 and 14 of 1996. The appellant has annexed a copy of the judgment in the said appeals with his Memo. of appeal. In the said appeal the appellant had asked for the reimbursement of the cost of petrol and this Tribunal had accepted his appeal but in the said Civil Appeal No, 13 in 1986 the Honourable Supreme Court set aside the order of this Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the said appellant by accepting the appeal filed by Government. The relevant extract appears in para. 10 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- It was not the case of the respondent nor the learned Tribunal has recorded any finding to the effect that a spare car was available in the Establishment Division but the same was not given to him for private use. In the circumstances all that he was entitled to was the car maintenance allowance. This he has already drawn. Consequently, the direction given by the learned Tribunal that he should be paid the cost of P.O.L. is without any legal basis. This being the legal position, it is unnecessary to consider whether the respondent was or not an 'entitled officer' -within the meaning of Rule 2(x), ibid."
9. Relying upon the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court (presented by the appellant himself) we are of the opinion that the cost of petrol could not be reimbursed to the appellant. As such the appeal is misconceived which is hereby dismissed.
10.No order as to cost.
11. Parties be informed.