1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The appellant was appointed as Stenotypist (B‑8/B‑12) in Pakistan Railways on 6‑11‑1973. He was promoted as Stenographer (B‑15) on 31‑3‑1988. The appellant during the course of his employment improved his academic qualification by passing F.A. and B.A. In terms of Finance Division P.M. No.F.1(12) Imp‑11/91, dated 29‑6‑1991 the appellant was allowed 4 advance increments. However, by letter dated 6‑2‑1994 the advance increments granted to appellant were withdrawn. The appellant after availing departmental remedy approached the Federal Service Tribunal by way of appeal which was dismissed as follows:‑‑ "We have examined the record. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Stenographer appearing at page 65 of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual (Volume I) prescribed B.A./B.Sc. basic qualification for appointment to the post. The appellant admittedly was working as Stenographer prior to 1‑6‑1991. Therefore, as Stenographer having the basic qualification of B.A., he was not entitled to any advance increment and the department was justified in withdrawing the same which were allowed to him provisionally on his own request. In fact,; it appears that the department was in is lead by the statement of the appellant in his application dated 14‑10‑1991 that he possessed higher educational qualifications of B.A., whereas the requisite qualification for the post of Stenotypist was Matric. In fact at the time he was not working as Stenotypist but as Stenographer and the minimum qualification for the post of Stenographer is B.A./B.Sc. The appeal is misconceived and is ' accordingly dismissed with costs."

2. Leave was granted in the above case to consider the following contention of the appellant:

5. The petitioner, who has appeared in person, in support of the petition has made two‑fold submission; firstly that the so‑called Recruitment Rules invoked by the respondents and relied upon by the Tribunal were not applicable to the petitioner, in that, the Pakistan Railways having been declared to be a Federal Ministry, the qualification prescribed for the post of Stenographer by the Federal Government in the year, 1969 vide O.M. No.F.27/61/69‑F‑II, dated 23‑9‑1969 being Intermediate, the qualification prescribed at page 65 of the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual as B.A./B.Sc. stood superseded and, secondly, that the petitioner had been promoted from the post of Stenotypist to that of the Stenographer in contradistinction to the direct recruitment, therefore, the basic qualification as B.A./B.Sc. for him was irrelevant.

6. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the aforementioned contentions. "

3. The appellant, who is appearing in person, contended before us that the learned Service Tribunal fell into error in holding that the appellant was not entitled to any advance increment in terms of Finance Division O.M. No.F.l(12)Imp‑II/91, dated 29‑6‑1991, as the basic qualification prescribed for the post of Stenographer under Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual (Volume I) was B.A/B.Sc. or Senior Cambridge and as such the departmental authority rightly withdrew the four advance increments allowed to the appellant. The appellant further contended that Pakistan Railways is a Division of the Federal Secretariat and therefore, the minimum qualification prescribed for recruitment of Stenographers in Federal Secretariat and its attached departments was applicable to the appellant. The appellant argued that in terms of O.M. No.F.27/61/69‑F.II, dated 23‑9‑1969, the prescribed qualification for the post of Stenotypist was Matriculation while the qualification for the post of Stenographer was Intermediate. However, for promotion of a departmental promotee to the post of Stenographer from the post of Stenotypist the qualification continued to be only Matriculation. It is also contended by the appellant that the qualification prescribed for the post of Stenographer in Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual (Volume I) was inoperative and outdated as this was prescribed in the year 1954 and in any case after issuance of O.M.F.27/61/69‑F.II, dated 23‑9‑1969 it stood modified accordingly. The learned counsel for the Railways, supported the order of learned Service Tribunal. The contention of appellant is not without force.

4. It is not disputed before us by the learned counsel for the respondent (Railways) that the Railways is a Division of the Federal Secretariat under the Ministry of Railways. It is, therefore, quite clear that the qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of Stenographer in the Federal Secretariat and its attached departments was applicable to the case of the appellant. O.M. F.27/61/69/F.II, dated 23‑9‑1969, printed at page 78 of the ESTACODE (1989 Edition) relied by the appellant reads as follows:‑ "SI. No. 16: Minimum educational qualifications for direct recruitment to the grade, of Stenographer in the Federal Secretariat and its Attached Departments. For increasing .the efficiency of Stenographers in the Federal Secretariat and its Attached Departments, It has generally been felt that a Stenographer should have good knowledge of English. It has, therefore, been decided .in consultation with the Central Public Service Commission that the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the grade of Stenographer in the Federal Secretariat and its Attached Departments should henceforth be Intermediate. The minimum qualification' of Matriculation for recruitment to the grade of Stenotypist should continue.

2. It has also been decided that the Stenotypist who are permanent or are eligible for confirmation in the Federal Secretariat and its Attached Departments should continue to be promoted as Stenographers without being required to possess the Intermediate qualification in accordance with the rules. The Stenotypists who are purely temporary and are not eligible for confirmation in the Federal Secretariat and its Attached Departments should possess the minimum educational qualification of Intermediate for appointment .as purely temporary Stenographers."

5. From the above quoted instruction, it appears that the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Stenographer in the Federal Secretariat was enhanced to Intermediate from the date of issue of O.M. F.27/61/69‑F, namely 23‑9‑1969. However, in case of promotion of Stenotypists working in permanent capacity or those who were eligible for confirmation, the requirement of possessing the minimum educational qualification of Intermediate for promotion As Stenographer; was dispensed with, and they were eligible for promotion as Stenographer even with minimum qualification of Matriculation: The appellant who was promoted as Stenographer on 31‑3‑1988 after having served for more than 14 years as Stenotypist, was therefore, under the prevailing rules required to possess only a matriculation certificate as his educational qualification. The appellant having improved his qualification first to F.A. and then to B.A. during this service as Stenographer, was therefore, entitled to four advance increments in terms of Finance Division O.M. No. F.1(12) Imp‑11/91, dated 29‑6‑1991, relevant paragraph whereof reads as follows:‑‑ "GRANT OF ADVANCE INCREMENT TO OFFICIALS FOR POSSESSING/ATTAINING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.

1. From 1‑6‑1991 onwards advance increments shall be allowed without the condition of the second Division to the officials in BPS I to 15 for possessing or acquiring higher educational qualification over and above the prescribed qualification in the relevant recruitment rules, to the extent given below:‑ No. of advance increments for obtaining:‑‑ Matric FA/Fsc BA/BSc MA/MSc. (a) Where the prescribed Matric qualification is non‑Matric. 2 4 6 8 (b) Where the prescribed qualification is Matric Nil 2 4 6 (c) Where the prescribed qualification is F.A. /F.Sc. Nil Nil 2 4 (d) Where the prescribed qualification is B.A. /B.Sc. Nil Nil Nil 2 The advance increments already allowed in terms of para. 6 of O.M. No. F.1/7/IMP‑II, dated 1st July, 1987 would be doubled from 1‑6‑1991. " It was neither argued before the learned Service Tribunal nor it is contended before us that the appellant was not a permanent Stenotypist or that he was not eligible for confirmation against the post of Stenotypist. The appellant was appointed as Stenotypist in 1973 and was promoted as Stenographer after clearance from the D.P.C. in 1988. There is nothing on record before us to hold that the appellant's case was not covered by O.M. F.27/61/69‑F.II, dated 23‑9‑1969. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of learned Service Tribunal and hold that the appellant was entitled to the grant of four advance increments in terms of O. M. No. F.1(12)Imp‑II/91, dated 29‑6‑1991. No order as to costs. M.B.A./M‑26/S Appeal accepted.