1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NIAZ AHMED Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS
| Citation | 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Irshad Khan and Brig. (Retd.) Abdur Rashid, Members |
| Parties | NIAZ AHMED Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Irshad Khan and Brig. (Retd.) Abdur Rashid, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NIAZ AHMED Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. S. Siddiqi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 20th October, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Pay‑Grant of premature increments‑Five premature increments granted to incumbents of National Pay Scale No. 17 posts of Engineers for which prescribed minimum qualification was gradua tion in Engineering‑Held : Not admissible to incumbent of post in such scale with prescribed qualifications of AMIE‑Finance Division O. M., dated 30th June, 1975. Syed M. Shahudul Hoque for the State.
Judgment & Decree
3. His departmental appeal having been rejected vide Chief Adminis trative Officer's letter, dated 28th November, 1981 he came up in appeal before the Tribunal on 31st December, 1981.
4. We heard the learned counsel from both sides. It appeared pertinent to reproduce Finance Division O. M., dated 30th June, 1975. It reads : . Subject: Grant of five premature increments in NPS‑17 to certain categories of employees. The President has been pleased to decide that in the case of the in cumbents of the following categories of posts, who since before 1st July, 1975 might be drawing pay in the National Pay Scale No. 17 (Rs. 500‑50 1,000/50‑1,250) their pay in that scale will w.e.f. 1st July, 1975 be enhanced by five premature increments subject to the condition that the pay so enhanced shall in no case exceed the maximum of the above scale; (i) The NPS‑17 posts of Engineers, the prescribed minimum qualifica tion for which is graduation in any branch of Engineering. (ii) The NPS‑17 posts for which the basic minimum qualification is a Master's degree in any of the physical/ natural Sciences. (iii) NPS‑17 posts of Lecturers in Colleges.
2. Those who are appointed to the above posts on or after 1st July, 1975 will be allowed ‑initial pay at the stage of Rs. 750 in NPS‑17 except in those in which initial pay at higher than that stage be admissible under any rules or orders of the competent authority."
5. A plain reading of the above‑quoted O. M. leaves no doubt in our mind that the post of AWM, which the appellant was holding had AMIE as the prescribed minimum qualification and that was why he was appointed as such. Clearly, therefore, the prescribed minimum qualification of the said post was not graduation in any branch of the Engineering and had it been so, then alone the appellant could have had any legitimate claim to five premature increments but in that case the appellant would not have been appointed to the post unless he was also a graduate engineer and fulfilled the prescribed minimum qualification.
6. Having given this case our due consideration, we are quite clear that the appellant's claim is misconceived. As such we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.