IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 1958 OF 2006 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 31.03.2016 
passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in 
Appeal No. 1891(R)CS/2015) 
 
Controller of Military Accounts (RC) Education Cell, Rawalpindi 
… Petitioner 
Versus  
Muhammad Zafar, Assistant Professor and another 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner:  
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Jaffar Raza Khan, AOR (Absent) 
 
For the Respondent (1): Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Ch, AOR (Absent) 
 
For the Respondent (2): Mr. Mehrban Khan, Admin Officer, FGEI, Dte, Rwp 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
19.01.2017 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- In February, 1987, respondent No. 1 was 
employed by respondent No. 2 on ad hoc basis on the post of Director 
Physical Education (BPS-16). He was later promoted to a post in BPS-17. On 
28.06.1992, the respondent No. 1 was served with a termination letter 
wherein it was stated that in pursuance of government’s decision his ad hoc 
service would stand terminated with effect from 30.06.1992 and in lieu 
thereof he may accept a post in BPS-14. The respondent No. 1 readily 
accepted the offer and was appointed on permanent basis to the post of 
UUGT in BPS-14 with effect from 01.07.1992. After serving in this position for 
about 12 years respondent No. 1 applied for the post of Lecturer through 
Federal Public Service Commission and was appointed as Lecturer in BPS-17 
on 17.10.2003.  
 
2. 
 
As the respondent No 1 was holding a BPS-17 post on ad hoc 
basis before his appointment in BPS-14 on 01.07.1992, he sought benefit of 
pay protection that is available to an employee who on account of 
government’s decision is rendered surplus and is accommodated in a post 
that is lower than his previous post. The Controller Military Accounts 
accepted his request and vide letter dated 01.12.2012 re-fixed respondent 
Civil Petition No. 1958/2016 
2
No.1’s pay from Rs. 32,000/- to Rs.35,200/- per month and paid all his past 
arrears. However, 2½ years later the Controller of Military Accounts vide letter 
dated 12.06.2015 informed respondent No.1 that he was inadvertently 
granted the benefit of pay protection and his revised salary was reverted back 
to Rs.32,000/- per month. The differential amount that was paid in 2012 was 
directed to be recovered from him. Aggrieved by such decision, the respondent 
No. 1 filed departmental representation. Having received no response, he filed 
Service Appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which was 
accepted and consequently, the order dated 12.06.2015 was set aside and 
respondent No. 1 was held to be entitled to pay protection. In granting such 
relief, the Service Tribunal invoked the principle embodied in Section 11-A of 
the Civil Servants Act, 1973. 
 
3. 
 
Aggrieved by such decision, the department filed the present 
petition.  
 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the benefit of 
pay protection of his previous post on the basis of respondent No. 1’s holding 
BS-17 post was a mistake on the part of the Controller of Military Accounts 
as the respondent No. 1 was holding BPS-17 post on ad hoc basis and being 
an ad hoc employee his services were terminated and not rendered surplus 
and then he was re-employed on BPS-14 post, therefore, he was not entitled 
to seek benefit of pay protection in terms of the principle laid down in Section 
11-A of the Civil Servants Act and the Controller of Military Accounts rightly 
recalled his earlier decision vide his letter dated 12.06.2015. Section 11A 
reads as follows:- 
"11A. Absorption of civil servants rendered surplus.- Notwithstanding anything 
contained in this Act, the rules, agreement, contract or the terms and conditions 
of service a civil servant who is rendered surplus as a result of re-organization 
or abolition of a Division, department, office or abolition of a post in pursuance of 
any Government decision may be appointed to a post, carrying basic pay scale 
equal to the post held by him before such appointment, if he possesses the 
qualifications and fulfils other conditions applicable to that post: 
 
Provided that where no equivalent post is available he may be offered a lower 
post in such manner, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed and; 
where such civil servant is appointed to a lower post the pay being drawn by 
him in the higher post immediately preceding his appointment to a lower post 
shall remain protected.". 
 
5. 
 
The principle laid down in Section 11-A is clear. Where a civil 
servant is declared surplus pursuant to any government decision, then he is 
Civil Petition No. 1958/2016 
3
to be accommodated to a post carrying equal pay scale. In case equal post is 
not available then he can be appointed to a lower post but the pay which he 
was drawing in the higher post shall remain protected. In our view, this 
benefit cannot be denied to respondent No. 1 merely because previously he 
was holding a post on ad hoc basis, by virtue of Section 11(1)(iii) and (3) of the 
Civil Servants Act. Section 11(1)(iii) and (3) reads as under:- 
 
“11. Termination of service.- (1) The service of a civil servant may be terminated 
without notice- 
 
(i) 
……………………………………………………. 
 
(ii) 
…………………………………………………….. 
 
(iii) 
if the appointment is made ad hoc terminable on the appointment of a 
person on the recommendation of the selection authority, on the appointment of 
such person. 
 
 
(3) 
Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1), but subject to the 
provisions of sub-section (2), the service of a civil servant in temporary 
employment or appointed ad hoc shall be liable to termination on fourteen days' 
notice or pay in lieu thereof.” 
 
6. 
 
The above provisions of Section 11 are ample proof that ad hoc 
employee is regarded as civil servant. An ad hoc employee in government 
service is also to be treated as civil servant. In a decision rendered by this 
Court in the case of Muhammad Sarfraz Vs. Government of Punjab (2001 
PLC (CS) 1224), it was also held that ad hoc employees in government service 
are also civil servants. In our view all the requirements of Section 11-A and its 
proviso exist in the present case.  
 
7. 
 
As to respondent No. 1’s entitlement for pay protection, a bare 
reading of the letter dated 28.06.1992 would show that the same was though 
titled as termination of ad hoc lecturers, but in effect it was issued pursuant 
to the government’s decision and based on such decision respondent No.1, 
who was then holding BPS-17 post, was offered a post in lower pay scale i.e. 
BPS-14. Thus respondent No. 1 was appointed to a lower post, not on 
account of any disciplinary action against him or that he did not possess the 
requisite educational qualifications to hold a BPS-17 post but purely on 
account of the general decision of the government that rendered him surplus. 
By then respondent No. 1 had already put in five long years of service to the 
satisfaction of the department. His status remained that of an ad hoc 
employee for no fault of his own and ultimately in 2003 he succeeded in 
seeking appointment through FPSC and was appointed as a regular employee 
Civil Petition No. 1958/2016 
4
in BPS 17 post. This peculiar service record by itself entitles the respondent 
No. 1 to seek benefit of pay protection on the basis of the principle laid down 
in Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which entitles an employee to 
claim protection of his pay that he was getting in his previous post. Hence, 
the Service Tribunal rightly extended the benefit of the principle laid down in 
Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 though on somewhat different 
reasoning.  
 
8. 
 
We, therefore, find no legal basis to interfere with the conclusion 
drawn by the Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment. This petition is 
dismissed and leave is refused.  
  
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
19th of January, 2017 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
Civil Petition No. 1958/2016 
5
(3) 
 
 
 
“2. Definitions.-(1) In this act, unless there is anything repugnant in the 
subject or context,- 
 
(b) "civil servant" means a person who is a member of an All-
Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation, or who 
holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, 
including any such post connected with defence, but does not 
include- 
(i) 
a person who is on deputation to the Federation from any 
Province or other authority; 
 
(ii) 
a person who is employed on contract, or on work-charged 
basis or who is paid from contingencies; or 
 
(iii) 
a person who is "worker" or "workman" as defined in the 
Factories Act, (XXV of1934), or the Workman's Compensation Act, 
1923 (VIII of 1923);” 
 
 + 
+- 
 
