2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. 1889 of 1996, decided on 9th April, 2002. ‑‑‑‑ Higher grade‑‑‑Claim for‑‑‑Civil servant who was appointed as untrained English Teacher in 1954 had subsequently got B.Ed. degree in 1971‑‑‑Civil servant had claimed that in accordance with policy of Government he should have been allowed B.Ed. grade scale 14 immediately when he qualified B.Ed., but scale (S.S.T. Grade) was allowed to him on 3‑2‑1982 and subsequent S.S.T. Selection Grade on 1‑9‑1989‑‑‑Civil servant at no stage in his service career was relegated to an inferior position from his seniority or was superseded on grounds of any adverse service record‑‑‑Authority did not oppose appeal of civil servant on merits, but had emphasised point of limitation‑‑‑Technicalities including limitation, even if established, could not override equity and justice‑‑‑‑No rule existed that right should not be allowed to a civil servant if he agitated the matter repeatedly‑‑‑Civil servant who had served Department for 37 years and Authority having never questioned his service record should have been allowed S.S.T. Grade in accordance with policy in force at relevant time on basis of his B.Ed./S.S.T. qualification immediately after he had acquired that qualification in 1971‑‑‑Civil servant was entitled to benefit claimed by him in circumstances. Allah Bakhsh Gondal for Appellant. Rana Safdar Ali Asif, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th April, 2002. The appellant was appointed as untrained English Teacher in 1954 and thereafter awarded the status of Junior English Teacher in 1962. He did B.A. in 1968 and then qualified B.Ed. in 1971. He was allowed the status of C.T. Teacher in 1962. The appellant claimed that in accordance with the policy of the Government he should have been allowed B.Ed. grade (scale‑14) immediately after he had acquired the same qualification in 1971 whereas this scale (S.S.T. grade) was allowed to him on 3‑2‑1982 and subsequent S.S.T. Selection Grade on 1‑9‑1989 whereas at no stage in his service career he was relegated in his seniority or superseded on grounds of any adverse service record. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant who was posted as C.T. Teacher in remote corner of the province kept on sending representation after representation of grant for S.S.T. Grade on the basis of B.Ed. qualification in time but no response was received and finally this grade was allowed in 1982. Learned District Attorney has only pointed out that the appellant failed to agitate for the grant of S.S.T. Grade in time and, therefore, his representation which he made subsequently was considered time‑barred and he was not allowed the S.S.T Grade by the competent Authority

2. I have considered the arguments from both sides. The department has not opposed the appeal of the appellant on merits. Limitation point has been emphasised by the department as well as learned District Attorney. I feel that the technicalities including limitation etc., even if established, could not override equity and justice in this case. This fact is not denied by the respondents that the appellant had done B.Ed. in 1971 and in accordance with standing policy at that time he had to be allowed S.S.T. Grade on his qualifications of B.Ed. It is nowhere given in the rules that a right should be E allowed to a civil servant only if he agitates repeatedly. Be it as it may, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant who served the department for 37 long years and the respondents never questioned his service record, shall be allowed the S.S.T. Grade in accordance with the policy at that time on the basis of his B.Ed./S.S.T. qualification immediately after he had acquired the said qualification in 1971 and all consequent and attendant benefits in accordance with the entitlement of the appellant and rules on the subject. The benefits prayed for in the appeal shall be allowed by the present successor to respondent No.2 under the Devolution plan, i.e. Executive District Officer (Education), Sargodha. H.B.T./77/PST.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.