2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Representation

• Syed M. Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for Petitioner. Shan Gul for A.‑G. Punjab.
• 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to two advance increments due to the above-said notification as he has attained the additional qualification. It is further contended that Akhtar Ali Dogar who is serving in the office of Advocate‑General has been granted two advance increments by the Government of the Punjab and his case is similar to the case of the petitioner, thus petitioner cannot be discriminated by disallowing him two advance increments as is being done through the impugned letter, dated 4‑12‑2001 issued by A.I.‑G./Development for Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab by which he has refused to grant two advance increments to the petitioner who is Stenographer on the ground that LL.B does not exist in the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department's Letter No.FD‑PC‑2‑2/91, dated 1‑8‑1991 for the purpose of grant of two advance increments. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that every citizen has to be treated at par and no discriminatory treatment should be given to anybody. He relies on (1995 SCMR 305) Market Committee, Multan through its Administrator and another v. Muhammad Sabir (1985 SCMR 1753). It is further contended that in the original Notification/Instructions referred to above, there is no distinction that the advance increments will not be granted to the officials who have passed the LL.B Examination, but, now the somersault has been taken by the Department that the LL.B" is not the Degree and cannot be considered as additional qualification which is illegal and unlawful.
• 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shan Gul, Advocate appearing on behalf of learned Advocate‑General opposes this petition firstly on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as the grant of two advance increments is the matter relating to terms and conditions of service.
• It is further contended that the advance increments can only be granted if arty employee has improved his qualification in the field in which he is working. It is also argued that LL.B is the professional Degree and the petitioner who is serving as Stenographer has not improved his qualification in his field. It is further contended that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan had considered and found that LL.B Degree obtained by the employees of four departments i.e. Advocate‑General, Office, Solicitor Office, Lahore High Court Employees and subordinate Judiciary can be treated as additional qualification for the grant of advance increments. He relied on the judgment passed in C.P. Nos.5‑P and 6‑P of 1996, decided on 22‑5‑1996.
• 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with this petition. The grant of advance increments has already been held by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No.204 of 1995 and Writ Petition No.1118 of 1995, as well as august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos.5‑P and 6‑P of 1996, as the matter which is amenable in writ jurisdiction. This Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction if the advance increments are not being paid by the public functionary and the public functionaries are not following the instructions laid down by the Finance Department. It is also nowhere mentioned in the abovesaid policy letter that the advance increments shall only be paid to the employees who have improved the qualification in the field in which they are working. From the bare perusal of the abovesaid instructions it becomes crystal clear that the advance increments are to be granted to those employees who have improved their qualification and there is no mention that the grant of advance increments will be to those employees who improved their qualification in the field, hence, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned Advocate‑General. Even otherwise, all the employees in the different departments including Mr. Akhtar Ali Dogar who is serving as Superintendent in Advocate‑General, Office has already been granted two advance increments due to the passing of LL.B Degree during the service. The petitioner cannot be given discriminatory treatment under the pretext that he has not improved his qualification in the field in which he is working. The impugned order passed by A.I.‑G. respondent No.3 is not sustainable as he has refused to grant two advance increments to the petitioner under the pretext that LL.B Degree is not the improving qualification in the relevant field while on the other hand, Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, vide its No.FD.PR.12‑4/97, dated 4‑5‑2001 has declared that possessing the qualification of LL.B Degree is equal to M.A./M.SC. The petitioner is being given discriminatory treatment which cannot be given to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be deprived of granting two advance increments. Hence, the impugned order, dated 4‑12‑2001 is declared as illegal and unlawful and respondents are directed to grant the petitioner two advance increments from February, 2000, when he passed the LL.B Examination. This writ petition is accepted.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree