1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Dr. Shafqat Hussain Chaudhry, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education Department and Finance Department, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order communicat ing to the appellant the rejection of his claim to pay the appellant by counting the period of extraordinary leave ex‑Pakistan, as service towards increment and also grant of five advance increments, may be set aside as illegal, arbitrary and without any basis.

3. Brief facts of the case are that during Summer Vacation of 1974, while appellant was posted in the Government College, Lahore, proceeded on leave on the ground that he was going to visit his younger brother in U. S. A. The appellant thus proceeded on leave in accordance with his application dated 25‑6‑1974, but he never came back right uptil 1979. On his return the appellant joined his Department on 26‑6‑1979. Instead of being proceeded under E & D Wes, for remaining abroad at his own, the Government on compassionate ground treated the period as leave from 17‑8‑1974 to 15‑3‑1975 on half pay and from 16‑3‑1975 to 25‑5‑1979 as extra ordinary leave ex‑Pakistan. The appellant represented for grant of five advance increments as due to him while on leave but his application as well as reminder dated 30‑3‑1981, were turned down vide Education Department's memo. No. SO.(CE‑1)18‑174/81, dated 30‑5‑1981. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as appellant, who appeared in person and have attended to the arguments of the learned District Attorney who has adopted the parawise comments in extenso, and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during service of the appellant there has been numerous revision of pay scales and according to the last one sanctioned w. e. f. 1‑5‑1977 ; the appellant was placed in N. P: S.‑17 with next increment on 1st December of the year. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that five advance increments to the incumbents to the posts in N. P. S.‑17, which have been sanctioned w.e f, 1‑7‑1975, should also be given to the appellant who has completed his Ph. D. course in Political Science reported back for duty w.e.f. 26‑6‑1979. It has been argued that grant of minimum of N.P.S‑17 with five advance increments was already sanctioned in case of others, was not sustainable as the appellant had been granted extraordinary leave.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the policy of the Education Department for allowing training abroad to its employees was always implemented in a systematic manner. In this respect applications are always invited from the working teachers and were processed by the Provincial as well as by the Federal Government, before such civil servants were allowed departure to foreign countries, alongwith monetary assistance so allowed to them. Learned District Attorney has vehemently opposed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has deviated from the procedure as he went to the foreign country on the pretext of visiting his younger brother and thereafter, he sought and got admission for higher qualifications. In this way his case cannot be considered at par with those who proceeded to foreign countries after their cases were duly processed by the Provincial as well as Federal Governments.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so raised before us by the parties in their favour and from the perusal of the file with regard to the representation to the higher authorities, it has been found that the case went right up to the Governor and was rejected with a clear observation by the said authority that it was unfortunate that indiscipline was being encouraged in service in such matters. Leaving aside the impact of the said observation by the Governor, the case of the appellant suffers inherent flaw and weakness as he chose a course which he was not permitted to do. His initial application for leave ex‑Pakistan ‑ was never for the purpose of higher studies as he had stated in his application that he wanted to visit his younger brother in U.S.A. Government has taken a compassionate view of the situation and condon ed his absence which could have resulted even his removal from service and allowed him to join subject to the co9dition that his absence from 16‑3‑1975 to 25‑6‑1979, was to be considered as extraordinary leave, ex‑Pakistan. The appellant on return was drawing less than Rs.900, therefore, his pay was fixed at the minimum of the running scales of N.P.S.‑

17. The said action was in conformity with the Financial Rules, therefore, no exception can be taken to it. The appellant being on extra ordinary leave ex‑Pakistan, a leave without any kind of financial obligation on the part of Government, cannot receive financial benefits for the same period. Finance Department would have definitely considered his application if he was so advised to apply for grant of one advance increment, if the same has not been allowed already. As the appellant was on extraordinary leave ex‑Pakistan, during this period hiss claim for five increments could be allowed by the Department.

8. The action 6f the Government is in consonance with the time honoured rules that during the period of absence of a Government servant on extraordinary leave the pay remained static and he cannot be treated at par with those who are working in the country in the said scale. The grievance of the appellant that his case has been discriminated while other have been treated differently we have satisfied ourselves in this matter and find that no such discrimination has been made in his case as the cases of others were of the nature in which they proceeded abroad after due permis sion of Government to improve their qualifications.

9. The result is we do riot find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.