1981 PLP 675 (SCMR)

SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The Government of Punjab seeks leave in, appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 11th October 1979.

2. The respondent, an Executive Engineer in the Highway Division had appealed to the Service Tribunal against the denial to him of the five advance increments which he claimed on the basis of circular of Finance Department dated 6-12-1975, which was later on 13-9:1976 recalled. The Service Tribunal held that "mandatory provisions have been made in the Central Engineering Services, where .the basic qualifi cations required is A.M.I.E. and the B. Sc. degree has been considered equivalent for exemption purposes. The equivalence is there in the Pakistan Engineering Council Act also in view of this factual position the grant of five advance increments to holders of A.M.I.E. (Pakistan) cannot be denied". The Government's view point before the Tribunal and as well as in this petition for leave is that the benefit of five advance increments was avail able to only Graduate Engineers and not to those who held A.M.I.E. Degrees which was in fact a Diploma,

3. The circular dated 6-12-1975 sanctioned with effect from 1-7-1975 five advance increment to incumbents of posts "in N.P.S. 17 posts of Engineers, the prescribed minimum qualifications for which is graduation in any branch of Engineering". It is not denied that N.P.S. 17 posts in the Punjab Service of Engineers to which the respondent belonged prescribed Graduation as the minimum qualification. Even the departmental construc tion of this dispensation was the same as has been done by the Service Tribunal, for by its circular dated 19-4-1976, the Finance Department inform ed that "officers working against the posts of Engineers in N.P.S. 17 who passed "A" & "B" course of A.M.I.E. (Pakistan) may be allowed 5 advance increments." This departmental construction was withdrawn by the letter dated 13-9-1976.

4. The circular granting five advance increments provided for the, minimum qualifications of the posts as prescribed in the rules. Therefore, the incumbents of those posts were not necessarily required to be Graduates if they held the posts for which Graduation was the minimum qualifica tion. The entitlement in their favour was created and given effect to by the Department. Not only, therefore, the rules entitled them to the benefit so did 4 the Departmental construction of it and a recall of an order of this descrip tion 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 fat 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. Petition dismissed.