2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner. Muhammad Rashid Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 2001. The petitioner holding an M.Sc. degree, was appointed as a Headmistress of Junior Model School by respondent No.1 vide letter, dated 29‑7‑1986 (Annexure B). The school was at that time of primary level and later raised to High School while the petitioner was designated as Principal. She was then duly appointed as Principal in BS.18 on regular basis w.e.f. 1‑7‑1990 (Annex B). During the course of the said employment the petitioner improved her qualifications. She obtained first a B.Ed. degree in 1989 and then M.Sc. degree in 1995. Under the Punjab Finance Department's Circular dated 25‑8‑1983 advance increments were to be awarded to teachers on attaining higher qualifications. The petitioner applied for the said grant and she was granted three increments vide order, dated 15‑2‑1997 (Annexure G). She feels aggrieved of the withdrawal of the said increments vide order dated 2‑6‑1997 (Annexure I).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his client had obtained the M.Ed. degree while in service and her claim for the grant of advance increments was duly accepted and could not have been withdrawn. Relied on the case of Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, Lahore and others v. Manzoor Hussain Khan and others (1992 SCMR 441). Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that the qualifications for the job were already prescribed as M.Sc. and as such acquisition of M.Ed. degree would be of no avail to the petitioner. Admits that the increments were granted but were withdrawn on audit objections.

3. I have given some thoughts to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in the said admitted factual background and I find that this writ petition must succeed on two grounds. Firstly para. 15 of the said Finance Department's Circular dated 25‑8‑1983 provides for payment of six advance increments to a teacher who possesses or acquires M.Ed. degree and also a Master degree in any academic subject. Now in the present case admittedly the qualification was M.Sc. for the job the petitioner was given. Admittedly she acquired M.Ed. degree during her service. Had she acquired both the degrees she would have been entitled to six advance increments. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the qualification for the job was M.Sc., she had rightly been granted three increments for the additional degree she had acquired. Secondly once the increments had been granted the Rule of locus poenitentiae would come into play as held in the case of Pakistan v. Muhammad Himaytullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407).

4. I, therefore, hold that the act of the respondents in withdrawing the said advance increments is without lawful authority and declare the same as such. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the result that the advance increments shall be payable to the petitioner by the respondents in terms of the said circular. H.B.T./F/52/L Petition allowed.