1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Hanif for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 1996. RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑This judgment will dispose of Appeal No. 844 instituted on 8‑5‑1995. The appellant claims to have been aggrieved by Notification No.SC/3651‑3581/94, dated 15‑11‑1994 whereby the Doctors enlisted in the said Notification were granted benefit of four increments in the light of the Government Order No.FD/R/19726 19826/87, dated 2‑8‑1987. The appellant was not allowed the benefits of this Government order.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant joined service as Dental Surgeon on 21‑2‑1975. The appellant was deputed to acquire Post‑graduation in Armed Forces Medical College, Rawalpindi and he successfully completed his course and was granted Certificate for a full time Post‑graduate Course in the, Speciality of Dentistry. The duration of this course was one year. The course started on 15‑10‑1978 and ended on 11‑10‑1979. The appellant filed a review, petition before the Government against the impugned Notification. The review, application remains undecided. The appellant has filed this appeal after exhausting period of ninety days as stipulated under section 4 of the Service. Tribunals Act. The appellant, besides other grounds has stated in rnemorandum of appeal that all the Doctors possessing additional qualification have been given four increments. The appellant has acquired Post‑graduation Speciality in lw4 own field but has been refused theses increments without any justification.

3. The respondents have filed written objection. The additional qualifications of the appellant has been admitted by the respondents but he, denied the entitlement of appellant to get the four increments on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to get the increments for the post against which his appointment was made.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

5. The appellant has appeared as his own witness and has stated that: several Medical Officers including Dental Surgeons have been granted four, increments. The appellant who is also duly qualified Dental Surgeon has been denied this facility. No evidence have been produced on behalf of the respondents to refute the statement of the appellant. From the memorandum of appeal and the statement of the appellant it appears that appellant has completed one year course in the Speciality of Maxillo Facial. Dental Surgery, From the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties it appears that appellant has been denied the benefits of the Government order for the reasons that he is a Dental Surgeon. While going through the impugned Notification we find that Dr.Rafique Ahmad Baned, Dental Surgeon has done his MSCPS in Dental Surgery He has been granted four increments. According to the submissions of the appellant this additional Speciality of Dr. Rafique Ahmad Baned is of less duration and qualifications as compared to the additional qualifications of the appellant. This claim of the appellant has not been denied by the other side. The perusal of the impugned Notification is also suggestive of the facts that all the other Doctors are mostly Diploma‑holders in their respective specialities. The relevant part of the Government order granting the advance increments reproduced:‑‑ (iii) Engineers and doctors holding posts the minimum prescribed qualifications for which is lower than‑a post‑graduate degree shall be allowed four advance increments in case they possess or acquire a post graduate degree in their relevant field for which they have not been allowed any qualification pay/allowance or advance increments. From the Government order it appears that no distinction has been made between the general Doctors and Dental Surgeons.

6. In view of the fact that the additional qualification of the appellant has been admitted by the respondents there appears no justification for the respondent Government to disallow benefits of the Government order to the appellant. The counsel for appellant has submitted that the respondent Government while allowing benefits of advance increments under the aforesaid Government order to some Doctors and refusing it to appellant has acted discriminately to the prejudice of he appellant and the action of the respondent Government is, therefore, violative of the fundamental rights of the appellant, there is no doubt about the fact that the appellant has acquired additional qualification as did the other Doctors and there is no justification to deprive the appellant of the benefits to which he is otherwise entitled.

7. The counsel for appellant has relied on 1994 SCR 402 and 1994 SCR 341 in support of his contention that the appellant has been dealt discriminately. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant has been deprived of his right to get the advance increments under the aforesaid Government order, which allows advance increments to the Doctors without any distinction. The law laid down in the abovementioned judgments of the Supreme Court is fully applicable in this case and we hold that the appellant has been dealt with discriminately in the matter of grant of advance increments.

8. In the light of the above discussion we accept this appeal and declare that the appellant is entitled to get four advance increments alongwith other Doctors under Notification No. SC/3651‑3581/94, dated 15‑11‑1994 and direct the respondents to issue the Notification to the effect in favour of the appellant. H.B.T./289/Sr./AJ&K Appeal accepted.