1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin 1991. SCMR 675 rel. (b) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Increment‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Entitlement to five advance increments in terms of Finance Department's Memo, dated 6‑12‑1975‑‑‑Memo granting five advance increments provided minimum qualifications for the posts as prescribed in relevant rules‑‑‑Incumbent of those posts therefore, were not necessarily required to be Graduate if they held the posts for which Gradation was the minimum qualification‑‑‑Appellant possessing the minimum qualification was thus, entitled to five advance increments in terms of Memo of Finance Department dated 6‑12‑1975. Hassan Ahmed Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to

4. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The above appeal with the leave of this Court is directed against the order of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 8‑9‑1991. By the impugned order, the learned Service Tribunal rejected the request of the appellant for grant of 5 advance increments in terms of Government of Punjab, Finance Department memo No.FD.PR‑18‑1/74 (Pt. 1) date 6‑12‑1975. Leave was granted in the case as follows:‑ "Leave to Appeal is granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution as the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be not in conformity with Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin (1991 SCMR 675)".

2. The learned Tribunal refused to grant the prayer of the appellant for advance increments on the ground that such increments were admissible under the aforesaid memo to those incumbents of the post B‑17 for which prescribed qualification is graduation in any branch of engineering. The above memo/notification came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin (1991 SCMR 675). In the above‑cited case, this Court while refusing leave to appeal against the order of Service Tribunal made the following observations:‑

4. The circular granting five advance increments provided for the minimum qualification of the posts as prescribed in the rules Therefore, the incumbents of those posts were not necessarily required to be Graduate if they held the posts for which Graduation was the minimum qualifications. The entitlement in their favour way created and given effect by the Department. Not only, therefore, the rules entitled them to the benefit so did the Departmental construction of it and a recall of an order of this description was not possible even with the reservation that was made with regard to the non‑recovery of the payments already made. The decision of the Service Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity so far as the conclusion is concerned. There is no point of law requiring examination by this Court. We find no merit in the petition which is dismissed."

3. The learned Tribunal attempted to distinguish the above case by saying that the above case related to the officers working against the posts o‑ Engineers in B‑17 who passed A.B. Course AMIE (Pakistan) while the appellant is only a diploma holder. It is not disputed by the learned counsel fog the respondents that the A.B. Course AMIE (Pakistan) is also a diploma course. In view of the above stated position, the case of the appellant is fully covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Government of Punjab anti another v. Muhammad Amin (supra) and we accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Service Tribunal and hold that the appellant is entitled to 5 advance increments in terms of memo/Notification No. FD. PR‑18‑1/74 (Pt.l), dated 6‑12‑1975. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. AA./M‑2142/S Order accordingly