' Muhammad Ijaz ul Haq, Secondary School Teacher, Government High School, Muhammad Wala, District Sargodha has come in appeal bringing in challenge refusal of the respondents to allow him three advance increments on the basis of higher qualification of M.A. (Urdu), earlier granted by the Executive District Officer (Education), Sargodha on 16-4-2003.
2. Facts gleaned out in the memorandum of appeal are that the appellant was promoted as S.S.T.
In BS-16 on 21-10-1998. He acquired higher qualification by passing his Masters examination in Urdu in the year 2001. Consequently, in accordance of the para. 15 of the policy of the Finance Department, Government dated 25-8-1983, he was allowed three advance increments admissible for Higher School Teacher on acquiring the qualification of Masters degree. Earlier, in the year 1998, M.A. In any subject was made equivalent to the qualification of M.A. In Education. Although, as observed, the Executive District Officer (Education), Sargodha allowed three advance increments vide order dated 16-4-2003 with effect from 28-4-2001, but the increments were not paid any time, which prompted the appellant to make representation dated 8-1-2003 to the Accountant General, Punjab, particularly in view of the decision of this Tribunal dated 27-12-2003 in appeal brought by the appellant bearing No.2023 of 2003. The Accountant General. Punjab did not decide the representation of the appellant, despite the orders of this Tribunal in the appeal referred to above, probably due to the instructions conveyed by the Finance Department. The Finance Department invoked para. 15(iii) of the Revision of Pay Scales, 1983 stating that High School Teachers were granted six advance increments, three for M.A./M.Sc. And three for M.Ed./M.A. In Education, and later on, when Service Rules for the post of S.S.T. Were amended on 8-1-1987, M.A. In Education was added as one of the prescribed qualification and after its declaration to be equal to M.Ed. Vide notification dated 15-7-1985, the Secondary School Teachers were upgraded from BS-15 to BS-16 with 1/3rd selection grade in BS-17 vide para. 1 (4) of the Notification dated 26-6-1990. It was specifically mentioned in para. 2 of the said notification that advance increments sanctioned by Finance Department in para. 15 of the Notification dated 25-8-1983 will. Not be admissible on acquiring/possessing qualification for which higher pay scales are being sanctioned in the notification, therefore the appellant was not entitled to three advance increments for M.A. Which could not be equated higher than M.A. In Education declared to be prescribed qualification as both are Masters degrees and not higher than each other.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended while stating his points in support of his appeal that the basic qualification for S.S.T. Was B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed., and that M.Ed. Or M.A./M.Sc. Is a higher qualification for which advance increments have been awarded. In this context, he referred to a letter of the Director Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab, Lahore dated 11-8-1986, wherein it was stated that a Teacher who possesses or acquires Masters degree, shall be allowed three advance increments. Secondly, opinion'of the Finance Department reproduced in the preceding paragraph was criticized stating that it was based on wrong interpretation of rules, reverting next to the opinion of the Finance Department that since post of S.S.T. Has been upgraded from BS-15 to BS-16 vide notification dated 26-6-1990, and that double benefits cannot be allowed to an S.S.T., it was again stressed vehemently that the interpretation placed was contrary to rules and equity. Learned District Attorney on the other hand supported the views of the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab and stated that appellant by drawing three advance increments for possessing higher qualification in M.A. (Urdu) would reap double benefits which has always been against the policy of the Government being in consonance with the norms of justice and equity.
4. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the record.
5. No doubt the appellant was allowed three advance increments with effect from 28-4-2001 when he qualified in acquiring Masters degree in Urdu in the year 2001. However; these increments were allowed by the Executive District Officer (Education), Sargodha, by an officer in his own hierarchy, and when the matter went to the Accounts Officer, he vide letter dated 28-1-2004 referred to the advice of the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab dated 10-2-2003 whereby it was decided to protect the pay of Teachers who have been allowed double benefits of advance increments and higher pay scales for the higher qualification acquired/proceeded over and above the prescribed qualification specified in the relevant service rules for the post, but had decided not to effect recoveries on this account from, the said Teachers. The decision, it was stated covered the cases of those Teachers who have already availed the benefit and those who have not availed the benefit, the cases were taken up by the Finance Department , for further decision. Appellant was told that grant of advance increments will be considered in the light of the Finance Department's decision. Learned counsel was told to wait for the decision, but he hurriedly added that the, comments submitted by the Finance Department to the appeal amounts to refusal of payment of increments to him, therefore the mater be decided on the basis of the present record.
6. Secondary School Teachers were earlier in BS-15, but by a subsequent policy on 26-6-1990, they were placed in BS-16 with 1/3rd in selection grade in BS-17, and it was decided in para. 2 of the said policy that advance increments sanctioned by the Finance Department in para. 15 of their letter dated 25-8-1983 will not be admissible on acquiring/possessing qualifications for which higher pay scales are being sanctioned in the notification/circular, dated 26-6-1990. The view expressed in the said notification came for scrutiny before the Hoit'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of the Punjab through The Secretary Education and others v. Faqeer Hussain and 5 others reported in 2004 PLC (C.S) 491, and it was held that the Teachers are no more entitled for any advance increments granted to them from time to time in view of upgradation of their pay scales which amounts to double benefit not admissible under any canon of interpretation. Order of the Punjab Service Tribunal allowing increments to the respondent, who was a Teacher was set aside.
7. Viewed from another angle, appellant ceases to the increment allowed to him by the Executive District Officer (Education), Sargodha. According to Punjab Education Department's School Education Recruitment Rules, 1987, the qualification for Secondary School Teachers is as follows:-- "B.A./B.Sc. And B.Ed/B.T. From recognized University of equivalent qualifications or higher qualifications i.e. M.A. In Education. "
' Later on M.A. In Education was equated to M.Ed. By the Institute of Research and Universities in the Punjab. Appellant having qualified the Masters degree in Urdu cannot be placed at a higher pedestal in M.A. (Education) declared to be prescribed as both are Masters degrees and not higher than each other. It would thus be seen that at the time when the appellant possessed M.A. (Urdu) in the year 2001, it was qualification in the alternative for being eligible to the post of Secondary School Teacher, and as such grant of three advance increments was out of question.
' Viewed from every angle, appellant is not entitled to the relief prayed. Appeal brought by the appellant is accordingly dismissed.