2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Rana Muhammad Yasin District Attorney Abdur Rashid, Section Officer, for Respondent No.3. Ahsan Ahmad Bhatti, Law Officer, for Respondents No. 1 and

2. Date of hearing: 19th May, 2004. This single judgment shall also dispose of Appeals Nos. 183 and 185 of 2004 simultaneously, since identical facts and common questions of law are involved in all these appeals.

2. Appellants are ESTs/Middle School Teachers. They claimed advance increments on the basis of qualification of B.Ed. They were informed by the concerned authority that as their posts had been upgraded to BS‑14 through order dated 26‑6‑1990, they were no more entitled to advance increments on the basis of B.Ed. The impugned orders in the case of appellant Haq Nawaz (Appeal No. 1'82 of 2004) and appellant Zafar Iqbal (Appeal No. 185 of 2004) where passed on 11‑10‑2003 and impugned order 'in the case of appellant Muhammad Ashraf Gondal (Appeal No.183 of 2004) was passed on 20‑9‑2003. After having exhausted departmental remedy, appellants have come to this Tribunal in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants states at the very out set that the issue of advance increments on the basis of B.Ed. to Middle School Teachers/ESTs in spite of upgradation of their posts has already been settled by this Tribunal, in numerous judgments on the subject and the law of consistency required that the present appellants be also declared entitled to advance increments in the same way as many appellants who filed different appeals before this Tribunal, were declared so entitled. Learned counsel has particularly, drawn attention to the recent judgment dated 27‑8‑2003 in Appeal No. 1161 of 2003 on the subject. Learned counsel maintains that the stand taken by the respondents particularly Finance Department Was devoid of any logic because instructions issued by the Finance Department dated 31‑1‑1988 vide which two advance increments were allowed on acquiring B.Ed. to ESTs still held the field and had not been withdrawn rather these instructions were reinforced through order dated 26‑6‑1990 vide which ESTs were held not entitled to advance increments on the basis of only that qualification .on which the posts had been upgraded.

4. Appeals are opposed by the respondents particularly respondent No. 1/Finance Department mainly on the ground that the appellants stood sufficient compensated as they had been placed in BS‑14 through notification dated 26‑6‑1990 on the basis of B.A./B.Sc. and, therefore, they had ceased to be entitled to any further increments on the basis of higher qualification. It is next maintained that the notification dated 26‑6‑1990 issued by Government/Education Deptt. had to be considered in terms of ban on advance increments to ESTs and other teachers whose posts had been upgraded and placed in higher pay scale.

5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. In many judgments on the subject of grant of advance increments of ESTs, this Tribunal gave the observation that the basic circular letter dated 31‑1‑1988 granting advance increments of ESTs, being in the field and in operation, the ESTs, remained entitled to advance increments on the basis of B.Ed. and M.A./M.Sc. If the Government thought that the ESTs, had ceased to be entitled to advance increments in consequence of upgradation of their posts then they should have withdrawn this circular letter and should have decided in so many words that henceforth the ESTs shall not be, entitled to any advance increment on, the basis of higher qualifications whatsoever those qualifications may be. I find that no such notification withdrawing the earlier notification granting advance increments has been issued so far, I also find that as per notification dated 31‑1‑1988 ESTs, whose posts had not yet been upgraded were allowed, in addition to advance increments on B.A/B.Sc. two advance increments on the basis of B.Ed and one advance increment on the basis of M.A./M.Sc. This notification was further amended through a notification dated 26‑6‑1990 vide which the post of ESTs were upgraded to BS‑14 with a clear stipulation that BS‑14 shall be allowed to those ESTs who acquired B.A/B.Sc. in second division. It was also laid ‑down in the said notification that. Henceforth advance increments sanctioned to teachers shall not be allowed on the basis of qualifications for which higher pay scales are being sanctioned now. Higher pay scale sanctioned for the post of EST was on the basis of B.A./B.Sc. Obviously, therefore, advance increments shall cease to be allowed to ESTs on the basis of B.A./B.Sc. as per original circular letter dated 25‑8‑1983 i.e. three advance increments. Therefore, the advance increments sanctioned through circular letter dated 31‑1‑1988 on the basis of B.Ed. and M.A./M.Sc. remained admissible to ESTs. I do not agree with the interpretation of the Finance Department that notification dated 26‑6‑1990 had the effect of withdrawal of all advance increments to teachers on the basis of any higher qualification, as no such thing is mentioned in the said notification.

6. For the reasons given above, appeals are accepted, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./27/PST Appeals accepted.