1998 PLP 554 (SCMR)
TAQWEEMUL HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through the Secretary, Education and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 554 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | TAQWEEMUL HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through the Secretary, Education and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 554 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 554 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 554 (SCMR) (TAQWEEMUL HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through the Secretary, Education and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1995.
- Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the Government
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the N.W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 12‑10‑1994, passed in Service Appeal No.24 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Entitlement to regularisation of service alongwith advance increments with all other back benefits‑‑‑Civil servant's departmental appeal for grant of regular B. P. S. 16 and 8 advance increments (on account of his additional qualifications), having been rejected, he filed appeal before Service Tribunal which was partially accepted by allowing him only graded pay from the date he acquired requisite qualification for the post in question, with arrears, if any, from that date‑‑‑Civil servant's remaining relief regarding regularization of service and advance increments was rejected‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Service Tribunal had erred to decline relief of regularisation of service of civil servant and advance increments; civil servant having improved his qualifications, whether he was not only entitled to regularisation of service from the date of his appointment but was also entitled to six advance increments plus two advance increments for being M.Sc. (Agriculture) which was equivalent to M. Phil. according to Notification dated 3‑11‑1990. Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the Government
Judgment & Decree
M. Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the Government Date of hearing: 7th November, 1995. MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.‑‑‑Taqweemul Haq, Petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the N.‑W. F. P. Service Tribunal, dated 12‑10‑1994 whereby his appeal claiming regularisation of his service "by awarding graded/running pay in BPS‑16 alongwith advance increments with all other back benefits" was partially allowed.
2. The petitioner with the qualification of B.Sc.(Hons.) Agriculture was appointed on 23‑11‑1987 as S.E.T. in the Directorate of Education in N.‑W.F.P. on temporary and ad hoc basis in BPS‑15 (Fixed). Later on in 1991 these posts of S.E.Ts. were upgraded to BPS‑16 (Fixed). He passed C.T. (General) and-B.Ed. Examinations respectively in 1991 and 1992 from R.D.E., Peshawar and Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.
3. The petitioner's departmental appeal to Director of Education (respondent No.2) for grant of regular PBS‑16 and 8 advance increments having been rejected on 19‑12‑1993, he approached the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal which partially accepted his appeal and allowed him "only graded pay from the date he acquired the requisite qualification i.e. B.Ed. for the post of S.E.T., with arrears, if any,. from that date." The remaining relief regarding regularisation of service and advance increments" was, however, declined.
4. Mr. M. Zahoor Qureshi Azad, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the learned Tribunal has erred to decline the relief of regularisation of service of the petitioner and advance increments. In this context, it was submitted that the petitioner was initially B.Sc. (lions) Agriculture and had, subsequently, passed B.Ed. Examination, therefore, he was not only entitled to regularisation of service from the date of his appointment but was also entitled to six advance increments plus two advance increments for being M.Sc. Agriculture which was equivalent to M.Phil according to Notification No.FD(SR‑II) 2‑132/88/ Vol.IV dated 3‑11‑1990.
5. The contention needs consideration. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. A.A./T‑123/S Leave granted.