1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Roohul Amin Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th October, 1995. HIDAYATULLAH KHAN (MEMBER). ‑‑‑This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the respondents for non‑regularisation of his service in the regular time Scale No. 14 from the date of his induction and denying the benefit of six advance increments as admissible under the rules. It has been prayed that the decision dated 3‑8‑1993 of this Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 23 of 1993 Amir Rehman, Government Agricultural Training Teaching Training Centre, Peshawar and 7 others v. Secretary, Education N.‑W.F.P. and another", which is similar in all respects to the case of the appellant, may be extended in favour of the appellant, directing the respondents to allow the appellant the relief in terms of the above‑stated judgment.

2. The background of the case as narrated in the memo. of appeal is that the appellant was appointed against S.E.T. (Agriculture) Post in the year 1974 and he was allowed graded pay up to 1983 but subsequently discontinued. Previously Mr. Amir Rehman and 7 others had filed an Appeal No. 23 of 1993 in this Tribunal against non‑regularisation of their services in the regular time Scale No. 14 from the date of their induction in service and denial to them the benefit of six advance increments which was decided in their favour on 3‑8‑1993. The appellant claimed the same benefit which was allowed to his colleagues on the basis of the judgment referred to above. Since the appellant is working against the same cadre and post, therefore, he is also entitled for all service benefits allowed to Mr. Amir Rehman and 7 others. The appellant constantly and vigorously pursued the case with the respondent department bur. no action has been taken on this score. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed hi, departmental representation dated 21‑9‑1994 which elicited no response within the statutory period of 90 days, hence his appeal.

3. Respondents have filed their reply, contested the appeal and denied the claim of the appellant.

4. The main issue involved in this case is as to whether the principle adopted in Appeal No. 23 of 1993 "Amir Rehman v. Secretary, Education and another", which was decided on 3‑8‑1993 by this Tribunal in their favour and that the relief given to the appellants in that case would be applicable to the instant case and the appellant would be entitled to the relief which was allowed to Amir Rehman and others in that case. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Government of West Pakistan, Finance Department vide its Notification dated 5‑1‑1965 made further amendments under heading "Education Department in Part 11 of the Schedule appended to the West Pakistan Non‑Gazetted) Civil Services (Pay Revision Rules, 1963 1n this amendment 6 advance increments were allowed to Agriculture Teachers %kith qualification of B.Sc. Agriculture and it was on the basis of this amendment that the services of Mr. Amir Rehman and 7 others in the above‑cited appeal were regularised and they were allowed 6 advance increments vide judgment dated 3‑8‑1993. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that it was the duty of the respondent department to have allowed the same relief to all the incumbents through this amendment in the rules but the respondent department failed in doing so, therefore, the appellant was constrained to file the present appeal before this Tribunal after preferring departmental appeal on 21‑9‑1994. The learned Government Pleader contends that the appeal has become time‑barred because the 1965 Rules were overtaken by 1983 Rules in which further qualifications were required. The Rules of 1983 are prospective in nature and would not be applicable to the Notification dated 5‑1‑1965. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the appeal is time‑barred because the appellant has not claimed his rights within the period of limitation. His contention is that he should have submitted departmental appeal and in case of rejection of the departmental appeal he should have come to the Tribunal within the period of limitation after his induction to service because the amended Rules of 1965 were in field at that time. The objection is valid to the extent of the claim to arrears of 6 advance increments but not valid to the regularisation of service because regularisation of service is a continuous right and would not be hit by limitation at any time. The appellant was inducted in service when the (Amendment) Rules of 1965 were in field and he was entitled to the 6 advance increments and his service had to be regularised accordingly. The Tribunal is, therefore, of the view that the case of the appellant is covered under‑the Rules of 1965 and his services are to be regularised in the light of the rules mentioned above and his pay shall be fixed according to amendments vide Notification dated 5‑1‑1965 by allowing 6 advance increments as claimed by him. The representative of the respondents; admitted that other colleagues of the appellant namely Amir Rehman etc. have been granted the relief in accordance with the previous judgment of this Tribunal.

5. As regards arrears of pay after this regularisation of service, the appellant would not be entitled to the arrears of pay from the date of his induction because he has failed to claim arrears within the period of limitation. The arrears shall be allowed to him with effect from 21‑9‑1994 when he preferred departmental appeal and claimed therein the arrears of pay with 6 advance increments added to his basic pay. The relief is, therefore, granted to the limitation mentioned above. However, this shall not deprive fixation of pay to his detriment for future and 6 advance increments shall be added to his pay for future, so that his case is treated at par with the case of Amir Rehman and others mentioned above and that the relief granted to the appellant should be akin to the relief allowed to Amir Rehman etc. with a difference that no arrears of pay before 21‑9‑1994 shall be allowed to the appellant. The appeal is accepted in the above terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record. H.B.T./198/Sr. N.‑W.F.P. Appeal accepted.