2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
EDO EDUCATION, KHANEWAL and others Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 4 others
| Citation | 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | EDO EDUCATION, KHANEWAL and others Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (EDO EDUCATION, KHANEWAL and others Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaka-ur-Rehman, Additional A.-G. and M. Akram Shahid, DEO (SE) Khanewal for Petitioners (in all cases).
- 3. It has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Department, that the notification dated 25-8-1983 has been misconstrued, particularly in the circumstance when another notification dated 26-6-1990 was issued and as per para 2 thereof, the increment was not admissible to the employees for acquiring/possessing qualification for which higher pay scales are being sanctioned in the said notification. It is argued that according to Serial No.2, higher pay scales had been allowed to the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 4-10-2010 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals Nos. 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548 and 1549 of 2010).
Advance increment for acquiring higher qualification
Elementary English Teacher's such claim was based on Notifications dated 25-8-1983 and dated 7-7-2007 issued by Punjab Government
Plea of Authority was that such claim was not allowable in view of Notification dated 26-6-1990 admitting higher pay scale to such teacher
Such teacher had acquired higher qualification during course of her employment
If notification dated 26-6-1990 had not been enforced, then such teacher would have been entitled to increment in terms of notifications dated 25-8-1983 and 7-7-2007
Authority had not raised such plea before Service Tribunal
Clause 2 of Notification dated 26-6-1990 did not bar claim of such teacher
Such claim accepted by Tribunal was upheld by Supreme Court, in circumstances. Respondents in person (in C.P. 17-L of 2011).
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
These petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, are being disposed of together.
2. On account of having improved their respective educational qualifications, the respondents, who were Elementary English Teachers (ETT), applied to the department for granting them advance increments in terms of paragraph No. 15 of the Government of Punjab notification dated 25-8-1983. The request was declined at the level of the department and they could not even succeed in the departmental appeal. However, on approaching the Punjab Service Tribunal, their appeals have been accepted and it has been found on the basis of their acquired qualifications and the interpretation/application of the said notification read with a subsequent notification dated 7-7-2007 that the respondents were entitled to the advance increments, which were, accordingly, granted to them.
3. It has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Department, that the notification dated 25-8-1983 has been misconstrued, particularly in the circumstance when another notification dated 26-6-1990 was issued and as per para 2 thereof, the increment was not admissible to the employees for acquiring/possessing qualification for which higher pay scales are being sanctioned in the said notification. It is argued that according to Serial No.2, higher pay scales had been allowed to the respondents.
4. Heard. There is no denial of the fact that the respondents have acquired higher qualifications during the course of their employment and if the notification dated 26-6-1990 was not enforced, they would have been entitled to have the increment as per notification dated 25-8-1983 read with notification dated 7-7-2007, thus the question is narrowed down as to if they are prevented and precluded on account of the notification dated 26-6-1990, to which reference has been made in this regard, suffice it to say that this has not been the case of the respondents before the Service Tribunal. Even reading clause 2 of the notification along with Serial No.2 thereof, it is not spelt out any bar to the respondents who are ETT (teachers). In any case, we, in the circumstances, do not find this to be a fit case for the exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as no substantial question of law of public importance has been raised.
5. Resultantly, these petitions having no merits are, accordingly, dismissed. Leave to appeal declined. S.A.K./E-2/SC Leave refused.