2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.

Through this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above appeals arising out of the consolidated judgment dated 15-3-1995 passed, by the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Service Appeals Nos.102(R) to 112(R) of 1995.

2. The facts of the-case and the questions involved therein are succinctly stated in the leave granting order, which reads thus:-- "

2. The petitioners in all the petitions were appointed as Physical Training Instructors (PTI) in BPS-15 and were posted in different schools. By Notification No.F.1(2)/R.I./91-762, dated 18-7-1991, the Finance Division conveyed the sanction of the upgradation inter alia of the post of Secondary School Teacher (Trained Graduates, i.e. B.A./B.Sc., B.Ed.) to BPS-16 w.e.f. 1-6-1991. The petitioners being Physical Training Instructors (PTI) were not included in the list of the upgraded posts of teachers. Thereafter in August, 1991 by virtue of notification No.F-90/91/(SA)FME all the existing Trained Graduate/Untrained Graduate Teachers, i.e. B.A./B.Sc., B.Ed. working in B-15 in Federal Government Educational Institutions, Islamabad/Federal Area were placed in B-16 w.e.f upgradation of the posts i.e. 1-6-1991. By office order, dated 12-4-1991 revised pay scales of untrained graduate teachers whose posts were upgraded, were notified. Again by office order dated 17-3-1992 the incumbents of the posts of untrained graduate teachers including Technical/Village Workshop Instructors already in B-15 were placed in revised B-16 w.e.f. 1-6-1991. The petitioners, who are graduates and some of them have even successfully obtained M.A. degree, were not upgraded from B-15 to B-16 and their representations having been rejected on 9-2-1995 they filed appeals before the Service Tribunal, which were also dismissed. The petitioners had prayed that the order, dated 9-2-1995 be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents that no discrimination may be done between the PTI (Senior) and the Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) and the petitioners, who are PTIs (Senior) be upgraded and placed in B-16 w.e.f. 1-6-1991 with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals holding that it has no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the Government to upgrade their posts as this power is vested with the Government and the Tribunal cannot enter into this exercise.

3. Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Physical Training is a subject in schools and colleges which is being taught by the petitioners and they all fall within the category of teachers. He further contended that untrained graduate teachers including technical/village workshop instructor in B-15 have been upgraded to B-16 and there is no reason to discriminate the petitioners and exclude them from the category of the teachers or to refuse to give the same benefits which have been given to other teachers. The question therefore, that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners could be discriminated from untrained graduate teachers/village workshop instructors who are not equal to them but are lower in category or at par with them. From the record there does not seem to be any reason advanced by .the respondents to justify the refusal to grant upgradation to the petitioners. If other teachers including village workshop instructors have been upgraded, why the petitioners should be deprived of this benefit. Leave is granted."

3. During the pendency of the above appeals the competent authority upgraded the posts of Physical Training Instructor (Senior) from B-15 to B-16 with effect from 22-8-1997,

4. We have heard Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants and Mr. Mansoor Ahmad, learned Deputy Attorney- General for the official respondents.

5. There does not seem to be any reason to justify the refusal to grant upgradation to the appellants with effect from 1-6-1991 in that their cases are at par with all the existing Trained Graduate/Untrained Graduate Teachers i.e. B.A./B.Sc., B.Ed. working in B-15 in Federal Government Educational Institutions, Islamabad/Federal Area. Admittedly all the above teachers have been placed in B-16 with effect from upgradation of the post i.e. 1-6-1991, vide Notification No.F-90/91/(SA)FME. This being so, we see no reason why discriminatory treatment be meted out to the appellants qua the other teachers similarly placed.

6. Resultantly, we allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The result is that the appellants shall stand upgraded and placed in B-16 with effect from 1-6-1991 with all consequential benefits. No costs. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./A-126/S Appeals allowed.