' GHULAM SARWAR KHERO, (MEMBER-I).---This appeal is filed under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the impugned order dated 17-7-1999 issued by respondent No,5 praying therein to set aside the same and restrain the respondents from making any deduction from the pay on any basis.
2. The facts of the case as per memo. Of appeal are that the appellant joined service as High School Teacher and was allowed Grade-16 on 1-7-1976 under the formula of 30% Selection Grade. Subsequently, the post held by him was upgraded to BS-17 with effect from 1-7-1983.
3. Later on, the appellant while holding Selection Grade (BS-17) was promoted on regular basis in BS-17 and posted as Deputy Education Officer vide Government of Sindh Education Department Notification dated 28-7-1988.
4. Earlier the appellant after having reached the maximum ceiling of BS-17 on 1-12-1986 was allowed move-over to BS-18 w,e,f, 1-12-1987.
5. The appellant reached the maximum ceiling of BS-18 on 1-12-1990 and as per eligibility certificate dated 9-4-1993 issued by the District Accounts Officer, Hyderabad the appellant on the recommendation of Move-over Committee was allowed Mover-over from BS-18 to BS-19 w,e,f, 1-12- 1991. The appellant was also allowed difference of pay from 1-12-1991 to December, 1993 and was subsequently paid salary of BS-19 upto February, 1996 (paid in March 1996). Whereafter all of sudden D.A.O. Hyderabad vide order dated 6-12-1993 scored off his salary in BS-19 from the Pay Bill of April, 1996 and paid the appellant salary in BS-18 without giving any show cause/showing any reason. Later, from the month of October 1996, the D.A.O. Concerned started deduction of Rs,1,500 from his, salary till filing of this appeal without any order/authority. After protected correspondence with the Audit, the D.A.O. Hyderabad vide letter dated 17-7-1999 (impugned herein) had taken notice of the two successive move-ovens in BS-18 and BS-19 which were not admissible under the policy. The appellant filed departmental appeal on 24-7-1999 and after having waited for 90 days preferred this appeal in the Tribunal on 28-10-1999.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant re-emphasised the assertions made in the memo. Of appeal and referred to the case-law 1985 PLC (C.S.) 133 relevant page 136 Syed Afzal Hussain Naqvi v. Government of Punjab holding that the rights once accrued to a particular Civil Servant cannot be taken back from him though given due to omission on the part of a departmental authority.
7. The learned A.A.-G. Contended that the appellant was not eligible for grant of move-over to BS- 19 though he reached the maximum ceiling of BS-19 on 1-12-1990 as he has neither promoted in BS- 18 nor allowed Selection Grade in-between these scales. He referred to the Policy Circular No,FD(SR-I)1(27)/83 dated 12-6-1986 whereby successive move-overs (without promotion in- between) were not admissible. He further contended that the appellant managed to get eligibility certificate from D.A.O. Hyderabad whereafter his case was placed before the Departmental Move- over Committee which recommended his move-over to BS-19 due to misconception and deception on part of the appellant.
8. After hearing the arguments of the parties we are of the opinion that successive move-overs as done in this case i,e, (from BS-17 to BS-18 and BS-18 to BS-19) were not admissible as per Polity Circular No,FD (Sr-I)1(27)/83 dated 12-6-1986. The Audit being custodian of the Government exchequer had rightly scored off the salary of the appellant in BS-19 from the Pay Bill of April 1996 and allowed him salary of BS-18 besides deduction of Rs,1,500 from the month of October 1996 till such over-payment is recouped in favour of the Government. As regards the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant (right created not irreversable) is concerned, the same cannot be applied in this case as the move-over is governed by particular sets of condition the foremost being the mandatory provision of promotion or grant of Selection Grade in between two moreover.
Such grant of move-over cannot be termed as "validly acquired right" but "erroneous" action of D.A.O. Concerned (1969 P.Cr.LJ 675 Abdul Salam v. State). (sic). We fear that if this benefit is allowed as prayed/claimed by the appellant this may create wrong precedent to which this Tribunal cannot become a party.
9. In view of the above we dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
10. Given under our hands and Seal of the Tribunal this 4th day of October, 2001 at Karachi.