2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER and others Versus ZAHEER ALAM and another
| Citation | 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khilji Arif Hussain and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER and others Versus ZAHEER ALAM and another |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khilji Arif Hussain and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER and others Versus ZAHEER ALAM and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jawwad Hassan, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab and Nizar Ahmad, Law Officer, Education Department, Rawalpindi for Petitioners (in both cases).
- Date of hearing: 24th June, 2011.
- 2. It was argued by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the entitlement to the increments was only for having acquired higher qualification of M.A. in the discipline of Education, whereas the respondent-Zaheer Alam got master degree in Political Science and respondent-Qari Hassan Din did his M.A. in Arabic, thus a notice was issued to the respondents vide order dated 24-5-2011. Pursuant to the above order, the respondents have appeared and we, on examination of the notification regarding grant of increments, are not satisfied if those are restricted only to the master in education discipline, rather as per notification dated 25-8-1983, to which reference has been made, it is clear that besides the M.Ed. six advance increments shall also be available to those teachers, who have improved their qualifications in "master degree in any discipline". Therefore, in the light of the, above, we do not find any force in the submissions propounded by the learned Advocate-General calling for interference in the instant jurisdiction.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment, dated 21-7-2010 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals Nos.2085 of 2008 and 2836 of 2009).
Increments on acquisition of higher qualification, grant of
Secondary School Teachers in Education Department
Refusal of department to give increments to such Teachers for not having got Master's Degree in discipline of Education
Service Tribunal accepted teachers' appeal
Notification dated 25-8-1983 showed that besides M.Ed., six advance increments would be available to those having improved their qualifications in "master degree in any discipline"
Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in circumstances. Respondents in Person (in both cases).
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Having improved their educational qualifications thus claiming entitlement to the increments on that account, the respondents represented to the department, but they were declined. Aggrieved the respondents filed appeals before the Tribunal, which have been accepted by the Service Tribunal through the impugned judgment.
2. It was argued by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the entitlement to the increments was only for having acquired higher qualification of M.A. in the discipline of Education, whereas the respondent-Zaheer Alam got master degree in Political Science and respondent-Qari Hassan Din did his M.A. in Arabic, thus a notice was issued to the respondents vide order dated 24-5-2011. Pursuant to the above order, the respondents have appeared and we, on examination of the notification regarding grant of increments, are not satisfied if those are restricted only to the master in education discipline, rather as per notification dated 25-8-1983, to which reference has been made, it is clear that besides the M.Ed. six advance increments shall also be available to those teachers, who have improved their qualifications in "master degree in any discipline". Therefore, in the light of the, above, we do not find any force in the submissions propounded by the learned Advocate-General calling for interference in the instant jurisdiction.
3. Resultantly, the noted petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. S.A.K./D-8/SC Leave refused.