Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM RASOOL SHOUQ, EX-HEAD MASTER VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1395
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Muhammad Afzal, Member‑III
GHULAM RASOOL SHOUQ, EX‑HEAD MASTER
versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary Lahore and 4 others
Appeal No. 329 of 2001, decided on 23rd April, 2002.
Civil Services---
‑‑‑‑Advance increments‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Civil servant joined service as S.S.T. on basis of prescribed qualification B.A./B.Ed. and was promoted to the post of Headmaster in BS‑17‑‑‑Civil servant who subsequently acquired higher qualifications of M.A. and M.Ed., claimed six advance increments in terms of Finance Department's Circular Letter dated 25‑8‑1983 on basis of such extra qualifications acquired during service‑‑‑Authority showed its inability to allow advance increments in the light of Finance Department's clarification letter dated 21‑5‑1998‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Finance Department's clarification dated 21‑5‑1998 being not applicable with retrospective effect, civil servant could not be denied what had become his right earlier in years 1989 and 1991 when he acquired higher qualification‑‑‑Civil servant was entitled to receive advance increments as claimed by him in years 1989 and 1991 when he acquired higher qualification strictly in accordance with earlier circular letter dated 25‑8‑1'983‑‑‑.Legality of clarification letter dated 21‑5‑1998 was questionable because condition contained in that letter was not imposed in original circular letter dated 25‑8‑1983‑‑‑Department was at fault to the effect that desp4e his persistent representations civil servant was not allowed increments till he retired‑‑‑Civil servant, in circumstances, was entitled to six advance increments as prayed for.
Shahzad Raza for Appellant.
Muhammad Ramzan, Director EAD/DR and Rana Safdar Ali Asif, District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2002.
JUDGMENT
The appellant joined service as S.S.T. on the basis of prescribed qualification, i.e. B.A./B.Ed.. He was promoted to the post of headmaster/B‑17 in 1985. He did M.A. History in 1989 and thereafter M.Ed in 1991. He claimed six advance increments in terms of Finance Department's circular letter dated 25‑8‑1983 on the basis of extra qualifications which he acquired during service immediately after acquiring the higher qualification in 1989 and then in 1991. However, his representations for the grant of advance increments were kept pending. Finally, an advice was obtained from the Finance Department and Finance Department regretted its inability to allow the appellant in the year 2000 in the light of Finance clarification letter dated 21‑5‑1998.
2. The appellant has argued his case himself pointing out that he was entitled to advance increments in terms of para. 15 of Finance Department s circular letter dated 25-8‑1983 which was applicable and operative at the time he acquired higher qualifications. It is further argued that apart from the legal vires of Finance Department's clarification letter dated 21‑5‑19P8 the said circular letter was not applicable with retrospective effect and, therefore, I the appellant could not be denied what was due to him in the years 1989 and 1991.
3. Learned District Attorney has pointed out that the case of the appellant was considered in the light of the latest policy instructions dated 21‑5‑1998 and regretted because the appellant stood promoted as headmaster and as the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment of the same post were the same as already possessed by the appellant, he was .not entitled to the benefit of advance increments.
4. I have meticulously followed the arguments from both sides. Under para. 15 of the Finance department's circular letter dated 25‑8‑1983 which was operative at the time when the appellant acquired higher qualifications, three advance increments were admissible to the S.S.Ts. even on promotion as headmaster if they acquired Master's Degree in Education (M.Ed.) and further three advance increments if they acquired Master's Degree in any academic subject, meaning thereby that six advance increments were allowed to a S.S.T. or a headmaster/B‑17 if promoted from the rank of S.S.T. who was M.Ed. and M.A. An embargo was placed on the grant of advance increments through circular letter dated 21‑5‑1998 in the case of incumbents of posts for which Master's Degree was the prescribed qualification for direct recruitment. The legality of this circular letter is questionable because this condition was not imposed in the original circular letter dated 25‑8‑1983. Moreover it appeals to reason that as S.S.T. recruited on the basis of B.A./B.Ed. should not be denied the benefit of advance increments on promotion as headmaster/BS‑17 and his promotion should rather not become a disqualification rendering him ineligible for a normal benefit which was reasonably allowed to S.G. teachers as an incentive to acquire higher qualification while staying in the same position. Moreover, it also appears irrational that an S.S.T. placed in the same scale (BS‑17) through moveover or selection grade should get the benefit of advance increments on acquiring higher qualification but should not get these increments if promoted in the meantime to the same scale. The plain agreements of the appellant that apart from the legal objections against the circular letter dated 21‑5‑1998, the said circular letter could not be applied retrospectively could hardly be controverted. The appellant was entitled to receive the advance increments in 1989 and 1991 when he acquired higher qualification strictly in accordance with the circular letter dated 25‑8‑1983. It was fault of the Department that in spite of his persistent representations he was not allowed the increments till he retired. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find the appellant entitled to the relief as prayed for. Appeal is, therefore, accepted.
H.B.T./81/PST Appeal accepted.