2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

This Writ petition was earlier disposed by me on 22-11-2005. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 17-3-2006 in C. A. No.285 of 2006 remanded back the case for a fresh decision. After the remand of the case notice was issued to the respondents who have filed a written statement.

2. The petitioners are SSTs and were promoted and appointed as such between the year 1989 to 2000 as detailed in paras. 2 to 6 of the writ petition.

3. The grievance being made out is that they having acquired higher qualifications as detailed in para.7 of the writ petition are entitled to grant of advance increments in terms of Finance Department notification dated 25-7-1983. Respondent No.3, however, refused to add the said advance increments in their service books. A mandamus is accordingly being sought directing the respondents to grant the said advance increments. The plea taken by the respondents is that vide notification dated 26-6-1990 (Annexure 'D' to the written statement) all present and future SSTs were placed in BS-16 with 1/3rd in selection grade BS-17. Reliance is placed upon para.2 of the said notification declaring that advance increments in terms of the Finance Department letter dated 25-8-1983 (Annexure `G' to the writ petition), will not be admissible upon acquiring or possessing qualifications for which higher pay scales have been sanctioned in the said notification dated 26-6-1990.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the said, notification is discriminatory inasmuch as the Primary School, Elementary School and Arabic Teachers have been given benefit for acquiring higher qualification whereas no such benefit has been provided for SSTs and as such the petitioners are lawfully entitled to the grant of advance increments in terms of the notification Annexure 'G'. Learned A.A.-G. on the other hand relies on the case of Government of the Punjab through the Secretary Education and others v. Faqir Hussain and 5 others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 491 to urge that the said notification dated 26-6-1990 in juxtaposition to the Finance Department letter of 1983 came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and it was held that a person who is benefited under the notification of 1990 would not be entitled to the grant of advance increments under the Finance Department letter of 1983.

5. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel and the learned Law Officer. Now there is no denial that the petitioners who are SSTs had availed the benefit of the said notification dated 26-6-1990 inasmuch as all of them were upgraded with selection grade in one step higher grade. I have also gone through the said case of Government of the Punjab (supra) and I find that the said, two notifications in juxtaposition to each other were considered by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and it was held that, a teacher benefited under the notification dated 26-6-1990 would not be entitled to grant of advance increments on the principle that it would amount to double benefit which is not admissible under any canon of interpretation. Respectfully following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan I do hold that upon a reading of the said two notifications the petitioners are not entitled to award of advance increments under notification dated 25-8-1983 (Annexure 'G'). Now so far as the contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the same has no force. The notification dated 26-6-1990 deals with four different classes of teachers and it has not been even contended that any SST has been awarded the said double benefit. I may further note here that whereas in the matter of Primary, Elementary and Arabic Teacher, two classes have been created in each of the said cadre i.e. those having or acquiring the qualifications mentioned against each of the said class and those who do not have said qualifications. However, the SSTs as a class were awarded the benefit by placing them in BS-16 with 1/3rd in selection grade BS-17. This benefit having already been granted, the benefit under the earlier notification dated 25-8-1983 cannot lawfully be claimed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs. F.B./M-585/L Petition dismissed.