SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 17-4-1999, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, in Appeal No,780-L of 1997.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Muhammad Zubair Rana respondent, who is a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) in Pakistan Railways School, Lahore, was granted BPS-15 with effect from 16-5-1989, vide an Endorsement No,561-E/97/P.SPL, dated 30-9-1989. The respondent's grievance was that he is entitled to BPS-15 with effect from 1-7-1983, as per Government Notification No, F(I-IMP)/83, dated 18-8-1983. He made a departmental representation on 1-7-1993 to the authority concerned, which was dismissed vide order dated 23-8-1997. After availing of the departmental remedy he filed an appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal, which was accepted with back benefits i,e, the grant of BPS- 15 with effect from 1-7-1983. Operative part of the judgment is as follows:- "It is further to observe that the Railway Department was never instrumental in hindering payment of the pay with effect from the date of sanction by the President of Pakistan i,e, 1st July, 1983. It when consulted the Finance Division, the latter made the trouble by demonstrating negatively and disregard of the mandatory order of the President of Pakistan and, thus, the Finance Division discriminated the appellant by rendering a negative opinion. Every civil servant is supposed to work fairly and diligently but in the instant case the incumbent rendering the opinion cannot be treated to have rendered the opinion bonafidely and as such he be made to explain his position and not to create problems for others including the Government Departments. Due to his wrong advice a lot of inconvenience has been . Caused to many, waste of time and incurrence of unnecessary expenditure in litigation at many stages."
Hence, this petition by the Railway Board.
3. It is contended that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal runs counter to the policy of the Pakistan Railways and that undue benefit has been extended to the respondent in violation of the revised rules as framed by the competent Authority.
4. It is mentioned in the impugned judgment that since the basic pay scale was allowed to the respondent with effect from 1-7-1983, by the competent Authority, it could not be modified or changed to his disadvantage, merely on the basis of an advice from the Finance Division. The respondent was rightly found entitled to pay of the higher post in view of .The law quoted in the impugned judgment. The judgment of the Tribunal is based on sound reasoning and does not call for any interference particularly when it is a case of individual grievance not involving any substantial legal question of public importance. Hence, the petition is dismissed and the interim stay granted by this Court on 12-8-1999 is vacated.