JUDGMENT UDGMENT NAZAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, MEMBER.-- The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 requesting for additional pay for holding charge of Head Clerk from 20.3.1999 for a period of eleven months. His departmental appeal, for allowing additional pay for holding the post of Head Clerk in addition to his on duties, has not received any response from the department. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that In terms of FR-49(b), he was entitled to additional pay for holding the post of Head Clerk in addition to his on duties. In this regard, the learned counsel the relied oh the following rulings:- 1986 PLC (CS) 66, 1995 PLC (CS) 1026, 1996 PLC (CS) 832 and 2002 PLC (CS) 1386.
2. He further stated that according to Rule 18(2) of the Pakistan Railways Police Rules and Rule 3(1)
(5) of Police Personnel Manual, he was entitled to this benefit. He further stated that according to the written objections of the respondents, the issue of limitation has been raised. He stated that no limitation runs against pay and pension matters and quoted the following rulings, in support of his contentions:- 1994 PLC (CS) 411, 1983 PLC (CS) 103, 1985 PLC (CS) 1000, 1986 PLC (CS) 296, 1990 PLC (CS) 136 and 1977 SCMR 509.
He also responded to the written objections in respect of the competent authority, who has passed the order, whereby the appellant was made to hold after the post of Head Clerk in addition to his on duties. In support, he produced the respondent's order dated 9.2.1992 detailing powers whereby Superintendent Railway Police was competent for the employees in Grade-I to 14.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and reiterated his written objection in respect of limitation. He further pointed out that no formal order was issued for the appellant to hold additional charge of the post of Head Clerk. He further stated that the Superintendent Police's order dated 22.3.1999 was an internal order, issued by the Superintendent Police, which was an informal arrangement. He further stated that the Superintendent Police, Pakistan Railway was not competent to issue such order in respect of Head Clerk.
4. We have heard the arguments from both sides and also perused the rulings as well as the record, It would be relevant here to reproduce the order of Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Police, Karachi, whereby the appellant has been ordered to look-after the charge of Head check in addition to his on duties:- "From:- The Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Police, Karachi.
To:- The Inspector General, Pakistan Railways Police, C.P.O./Lahore.
No. 940-E/5-PRP./Karachi, dated the 22.3.1999.
It is intimated that Mr. Alam Sher Rao OS of this office retired from service we. From 20.3.1999. Mr. Muhammad Ramzan, Head Clerk has been ordered to look-after his work in addition to his duties till proper OS is posted.
Kindly post proper OS in this office at the earliest.
Sd/- Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Police, Karachi".
A reading of this order, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, shows that it was not a formal transfer/notification, which is mandatory to entitle the appellant to additional pay in terms of FR-49(b) and other rules, quoted by the appellant is for Grade-I to 14 except Head Clerk, the relevant extract of the delegation order of 9.2.1992 is reproduced as under:- "Revised Schedule of Powers.
Garde to which Officers to whom the appointment is made. Power to make appointment is delegated.
1. Grade 9 to 15 in Deputy Inspector General.
Headquarters Office.
2. Grade 1 to 8 in Assistant Inspector Headquarters Office. General Admn.
3. Grade 1 to 14 in the Superintendents, Pakistan Divisions (except Head Railways, Police."
Clerks (BS-11).
As regards limitation, the objection of the respondents is not tenable as no limitation runs against matters of pay and pension.
5. The fact that there was no proper transfer notification/order in favour of the appellant to look- after the additional charge of Head Clerk and the order, issued by the Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Police, Karachi was without competence as in terms of delegation order dated 9.2.1992 and, as such, the appellant cannot be allowed the claimed benefit. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed, as it is not maintainable.
No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.