1984 PLP (C (PLC)

Tufail Ahmad, Teacher, S. S. T. Government Muslim High School, Tariqabad, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore and the District Accounts Officer, Faisalabad as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the recovery of the increment be stayed and be allowed to enjoy the benefit of incre ment so given to him.

3. The appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an employee of privately‑managed school before 1st October, 1972. After nationalization of this school the appellant became a Government employee. The appel lant had a qualification of M. A. and thus possessed higher qualification than the minimum qualification required for the post held by him. The contention of the appellant is that he was awarded one additional advance increment alongwith actual pay after nationalization, but the respondent No. 1 issued order No. F D P R‑10‑71/72, dated 4th March, 1978 with drawing the advance increment due to higher qualification of the appellant thus did not allow the benefit of the claim so made by him. The appel lant after feeling aggrieved of this impugned order of 1978, approached the Civil Court and was successful in obtaining the stay in his favour. However, this stay was vacated on account of ultimate judgment of the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Faisalabad dated 11th June, 1983, where it was held by the said Court that the case was not maintainable under Order VII, rule 10, C. P. C. for its presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction, Hence this appeal.

5. I have heard the appellant who was present in person. He has made lot of emphasis on the point that keeping in view his higher qualifi cation (being M. A.), than minimum required for the post, be was entitled to advance increment as the same had been granted to his coun terparts i. e., Government employees serving with the respondent No. 1 before 1st October, 1972. Also he has submitted that the order of with drawal of this concession is against the Government Policy and the decision of the Government. The appellant has, further, submitted that keeping in view his higher qualification, he was rightly given the advance increment after the nationalization and the recovery of increment so given to him in lieu of his higher qualification is against the rules, principles of justice and equity and he should be allowed to continue enjoying the bene fit of the increment.

6. On the other hand, I have heard the views of the learned District Attorney and the representative of the Department on the issue and it has been submitted by them that the claim of the appellant is absolutely mis conceived on the ground that at the time when he was inducted into nationalized service, his pay was calculated what was due to him keeping in view his higher qualification as well. In this manner it has been argued that the concession so claimed has already been allowed to the appellant and he cannot be given the same once again as this would be an act of double benefit. To justify the above arguments the Service Book of the appellant and the calculations so made for fixation of his pay at the time of nationalization were produced before me to substantiate the above argu ments of the respondents.

7. It has also been argued by the representative of the Department that the appeal is time‑barred as the appellant should not have gone for a civil suit being a civil servant and should have filed this appeal to this Tribunal in the year 1978. Thus seeking his remedy before the Civil Judge, Faisalabad was uncalled for and in this way the appeal is hopelessly barred by time for about 5 years.

8. Rebutting the above legal objection of the respondents it has been submitted by the appellant that the suit before the Civil Judge, Faisalabad was filed immediately and a stay order was secured by him, therefore, he has been vigilant in seeking the remedy at the time which may be consi dered valid and the delay in filing of this appeal before this Tribunal be condoned.

9. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and I am fully satisfied that the appellant has been given the proper pay, emoluments, increments etc. keeping in view his higher qualification which he was actually entitled on the start at the time of nationalization of his service and his claim that advance increment after nationalization be given to him once again, is not justified. The appellant has been drawing this unjustified concession on the strength of the stay order which was ultimately vacated, therefore, the Government would be justified to recover the same and no exception can be taken to the action of the Case No. 308/241 of 1983 Government in this respect.

10. The similar and identical matter already came before this Tribunal in Case No. 308/241 of 1983, decided on 24th January, 1984, Nazar Muhammad and 6 others v. Government of the Punjab etc. and their claim was also considered not justified on the same reasons by this Tribunal.

11. The result is that I do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no orders as to costs. M.I Appeal dismissed.