1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant did his P.C.S. (Judicial) and was posted as Civil Judge in the year 1978. The appellant while serving as Civil Judge was awarded Ph. D (Doctor of Philosophy) Degree by the Punjab University vide Notification dated 29th June, 1986. This degree was awarded on his work on "Saadat Hassan Minto". The appellant after conferment of Ph.D. degree submitted a representation for the grant of qualification allowance' @ Rs.1,000 per month w.e.f. 29‑6‑1986. This representation was addressed to the Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore. The brief background of this claim of the appellant was that the Provincial Government vide letter of the Finance Department dated 17‑6‑1986 has adopted the office memorandums dated 26‑12‑1985 and 8‑4‑1986 of the Federal Government whereby the Federal Government had allowed the "qualification allowance" @ Rs.1,000 p.m. to its employees. It is desirable to reproduce before proceeding any further with the matter, the relevant portions of the two office memorandums of the Federal Government as‑ well as memorandum issued by the Provincial Government. The relevant portion of office memorandum dated 26‑12‑1985 which is basic document reads as under:‑ "

2. Employees of technical and professional categories i.e. Doctors, Engineers, Educationists, Economists, Management Accountants, Scientists, Geologists, Meteorologists, Archaeologists, Experts in Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Forestry, Chartered Accountants, Electronic Data Processing Personnel/ Computer Personnel, Librarians, Pharmacists, Physiotherapists, Statisticians, Architects and Town Planners, serving in jobs which are required to be manned by persons holding technical or professional qualifications relevant to these jobs, will be allowed qualification Allowance of Rs.1,000.p.m. on possessing/acquiring a Ph.D/D.Sc. degree from any recognised University." This was clarified through the office memorandum dated 8‑4‑1986 and the relevant portion of the same reads as under:‑ "

2. It is clarified that the above allowance is admissible to all technical/professional employees of specified categories, irrespective of their scale, who possess/acquire the degree of Ph. D. /D.Sc. and are serving on jobs which are required under the recruitment rules to be manned by persons holding this degree. Such persons may be employed in the Secretariat or elsewhere. However, employees of B‑17/B‑18 posts who have drawn the advance increments for these qualifications and wish to draw the qualification allowance w.e.f. 1‑1‑1986, the advance increments shall be adjusted with effect from that date."

3. Both these office memorandums were adopted by the Provincial Government through circular letter dated 17‑6‑1986 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department and relevant portion reads as under:‑ "I am directed to refer to Finance Department's circular letter No.FD.PC2‑1/83 dated 25‑8‑1983, read with its clarification dated 2‑12‑1983 and No.FD/SRI‑10‑6/85, dated 1‑9‑1985 and to forward herewith a copy of Government of Pakistan, Finance Division Regulation Wing's Office Memorandum No.F.l(97) R .3/85, dated 26‑12‑1985 (annexure‑A ), on the subject noted above. It has been decided to adopt the instructions contained therein for similar employees of the Government of the Punjab, subject to the Federal Government's clarification as contained in their Office Memorandum of the same number dated 8‑4‑1986 (annexure‑B).

2. This benefit would be admissible to' the employees of the Government of the Punjab with effect from .1‑1‑1986."

4. The Provincial Civil Servants of categories of professional/technical as consequence of issuance of this circular letter of the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department also, became eligible for the grant of "qualification allowance" and for that matter they were at par with the employees of the Federal Government. It is pertinent to note here that the subject of all the three circular letters is "grant of qualification allowance to technical/professional employees".

5. It seems that the officers working in the judicial cadre were claiming move‑over. Their claim was that since they are, also, professionals, therefore, entitled 'to move‑over as other categories of professional/ technical civil servants. The claim of the Judicial Officers was accepted by the Punjab Government vide Notification dated 28‑5‑1986 which was styled as "extension of principle of move‑over" to the Government Servants other than those categories as "technical/ professional". The notification reads as under: "I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to state that the question as to whether judicial officers fall in the category of professionals' has been further examined in this department. In view of the fact that in the statutes of the Punjab University the subject of law .has been treated as a professional subject, and that a degree in law has been prescribed as a qualification for initial recruitment of judicial officers, it has, therefore, been decided that the judicial officers of the Provincial Government may be treated as professional for the purpose of move‑over under para 5(ii)(c) of this Department's circular letter NO.FD.PC‑2‑1/83, dated the 25‑8‑1983, introducing the scheme of Basin pay Scales. This is the precise background of the matter under consideration in this appeal. Now I take up the representation of the appellant for the grant of 'qualification allowance'. This request of the appellant was considered by the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department and was rejected with the remarks that the case of the appellant is not covered by the letter of the Finance Department dated 17‑6‑1986. This decision was conveyed to the Registrar, Lahore High Court vide letter dated 26‑11‑1986. The Registrar in turn informed (through its letter dated 4‑12‑1986), the District and Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura under whom the appellant was serving at the relevant time. This information went step by step and it is submitted by the appellant that he received the intimation of rejection of his claim on 28‑1‑1987. The appellant after ‑ receipt of the intimation proceeded to file constitutional petition No.923 of 1987 in the Lahore High Court. It was prayed that the impugned order dated 26‑11‑1986 be declared illegal, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction and having no legal effect. This writ petition came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Mian Fazl‑i‑Mahmood and his Lordship was pleased to direct the office to return the petition to the appellant for filing it in this Tribunal. The order of the learned Judge is dated 1‑6‑1987 while the petition was returned to the appellant on 2‑6‑1987 and on the same day the present appeal together with copy of writ petition and an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted in the Tribunal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. The claim of the appellant in nutshell is that since he has been granted Ph.D. degree. by the Punjab University, therefore, as per circular letter of the Punjab, Government dated 17‑6‑1986, he is entitled to "qualification allowance" @ Rs.1,000 p.m. in terms of office memorandums dated 26‑‑12‑1985 and 8‑4‑1986 of the Federal Government.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the three circulars/ office memorandums with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant. I am of the considered view that the claim of the appellant is absolutely misconceived, based on misconstruction and misinterpretation of the relevant office memorandums /circulars. The claim of the appellant for the grant of qualification allowance is not entertainable and without merits for the following reasons:‑ (i) Firstly the claim is misconceived because if the notification of the Provincial Government adopting the policy of the Federal Government and the two office memorandums of the Federal Government dated 26‑12‑1985 and 8‑4‑1986 are read together carefully and minutely then one can easily get the necessary conditions, which a civil servant must fulfil before claiming "qualification allowance". These prerequisite qualifications can be summed up as under:- (a) Government employees of technical and professional categories which are required under recruitment rules to be manned by persons holding this degree. (b) Serving in jobs which are required to be manned by persons holding technical or professional qualifications. (c) These qualifications of technical and professional are relevant to these posts. These are prerequisite qualifications which must be fulfilled before one successfully claims qualification allowance. These are in fact the controlling words in the office memorandums of the Federal Government. Now I once again reproduce the said office memorandum of the Finance Department but this time only those portions which pertain to and are relevant to highlight the above‑noted ingredients worked out by me for the grant of qualification allowance. The key words in the main office memo. of the Federal Government are as under:‑ "employees of technical and professional categories i.e. , Doctors.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... ..serving in jobs which are required to be manned by persons holding technical or professional qualifications relevant to these jobs ....... While the following passage of the second office memo: is of great significance:‑ "

2. It is clarified that the above allowance is admissible to all technical /professional employees...................who possess/acquire the degree of Ph.D./D.Sc. and are serving on jobs which are required under the recruitment rules to be manned persons holding this degree ........................ Now if somebody wants to claim qualification allowance then he should possess/acquire degree relevant to his job required under recruitment rules while in the present case, it is admitted position, that the basic qualification for P. C. S. (Judicial) is law graduation and the appellant has been awarded Ph.D degree for his work on "Saadat Hassan Minto". The same has nothing to do with his professional qualification as Civil Judge and the same is neither relevant to the job nor required under the recruitment rules. The appellant has improved his personal qualifications and not professional qualifications at the cost of public time at least to some extent. I had a mind to send for his leave account and the monthly return of units but subsequently deemed it not necessary as it is matter of common knowledge that the appellant has to focus all attentions and divert all his energies to achieve this goal. It will be now too much to pay him from the public exchequer. His reward is pride and distinction which he earned and not "qualification allowance". I find that there is nothing wrong with the conclusion, arrived at by the respondent that the case of the appellant is not covered by the Finance Department letter dated 17‑6‑1986. The learned counsel for the appellant completely ignored the key and controlling words in the office circulars as reproduced above. If the case of the appellant is adjudged in the light of the above‑mentioned ingredient /prerequisite then neither the Ph.D. degree in Urdu is required under the recruitment rules nor the appellant is working in such a job where his new qualification will be relevant. Now if the accumulative effect of both the memorandums is taken into consideration the rationale behind issuance of these memorandums clearly seems to be that the Government wanted to provide incentive to its servants to acquire higher degree in their professional/ technical fields. It is well‑known fact that there was dearth of fully qualified persons to man the technical/professional posts. Since Ph.D./D.Sc. candidates were not available, therefore, these posts were decided to be filled by persons of lower qualification, but at the same time they were given incentive in the form of 'qualification allowance' to attain the prerequisite qualifications of Ph.D/D.Sc. It cannot be argued by applying any logic or by any stretch of imagination that Government wanted to grant 'qualification allowance' without reference to the job of the civil servant. (ii) Secondly the office memorandum of the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, dated 28‑5‑1986, prima facie is for, limited purpose as is clear from its subject reproduced below:‑ "Extension of the principle of move‑over to Government Servants other than those categorised as technical/professional." The body of this letter has already been produced and I have underlined the last three lines which makes it clear that it only dealt with the move‑over under para 5(ii)(c) of the Finance Department letter dated 25‑8‑1983, whereby the scheme of basic pay scale was introduced for the first time. This way the letter dated 28‑5‑1986 is not relevant for the purpose of decision of the claim of the appellant. Therefore, I would not consider scope of the same at length. Moreover, further deliberations on this point are not necessary as in the preceding paras. I have held that even if the appellant is deemed by professional/technical public servant still he is not entitled to "qualification allowance". (iii) Thirdly, the Notification of the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department dated 17‑6‑1986 came up for interpretation before its author, who proceeded to reject the claim of the appellant. The policy of the statute is relevant for their proper construction. It is a well‑settled principle of interpretation that Courts in construing a statute will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it, at the time of its enactment and since, by those) whose duty it has been to construe, execute and apply it, although such interpretation has not by any means a controlling effect upon the Courts and may be disregarded for cogent and persuasive reasons. There are no reasons to differ with interpretation of Department.

8. Now from whatever angle one looks at the claim of the appellant or approaches to the grievance of the appellant the conclusion will be one and the same i.e., that the decision of the respondents was correct and the case of the appellant is not covered by the memorandum of the Punjab Government dated 17-6‑1986.

9. I may mention here, that even in this case Notification of the Finance Department clearly stated that it has been decided to adopt the instructions contained in the memorandum of the Federal Government "for similar employees of the Government of the Punjab". I cannot ignore the word 'similar employees' clearly and consciously used. It is thus, clear that the instructions contained in these office memorandums of the Federal Government have just been followed without any deviation or departure. Their scope and purpose remained the same. The memorandum dated 28‑5‑1986 is not relevant for another reason i.e., that this memo was issued on 28‑5‑1986 prior to the notification dated 17‑6‑1986 through which the office memo. of the Federal Government prescribing qualification allowance were adopted.

10. The upshot of the discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H. /137/Sr.P Appeal dismissed.