' Syed Musa Raza, Secondary School Teacher, Government High School, Pour Miana, Attock is aggrieved by the order dated 27-7-2002 passed by Secretary Finance Department, Government of the Punjab arraigned as respondent No.1 whereby advance increments drawn by the appellant on acquiring M.Ed. Qualification was not only discontinued but the amount drawn was asked to be refunded. His departmental representation was not decided by the appellate authority despite the fact that the Hon'ble High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in. Writ Petition 2918/2002 had directed the said authority on 4-10-2002 to dispose of the representation within 90 days.
2. Appellant was inducted in service as Secondary School Teacher in BS-16 through Punjab Public Service Commission possessing the qualification of B.Sc/B.Ed. The Government of the Punjab vide its Notification dated 25-8-1983 in para. III reproduced below, granted advance increments:-- "HIGH SCHOOLS: ' A teacher who possesses or acquires Master's Degree shall be allowed three advance increments.
In case of a teacher who possesses or acquires Master's degree in Education (M.Ed.) and also a Master's degree in any academic subject shall be allowed six advance increments."
3. Appellant having acquired M.Ed. Qualification on 1-3-2001 started getting three advance increments with effect from 1-3-2001 vide order dated 31-11-2001 passed by the competent authority. The minimum qualification for Secondary School Teachers was B.A./B.Sc. And B.Ed/.B.T.
From a recognized University or equivalent qualification or higher qualification i.e. M.A. In Education.
Vide notification dated 29-9-1987 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, clarified as under:-- "The action taken by the department is endorsed. This for the reason that M.A. Edu/M.Ed. Is a higher qualification irrespective of the fact whether the qualification of B.Ed./B.T. Is held by a teacher."
4. The appellant who argued his case himself, submitted that the impugned order was illegal as vide notification dated 29-9-1987, respondent No.1 himself admitted that M.A.(Edu) and M.Ed. Is higher qualification irrespective of the fact whether the qualification of B.Td/B.T. Is held by a teacher, therefore, the discontinuance of advance increments was not only illegal, but contrary to the principles of natural justice as vested rights created in him to draw increments was taken back unilaterally. Learned District Attorney on the other hand banked upon a notification dated 26-6- 1990 where, by implication, Secondary School Teachers were deprived of advance increments allowed to them vide notification dated 25-8-1983.
5. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.
6. Notification dated 26-6-1990 contained five parts. Part No.1 dealt with primary school teachers who were inducted in service on the basis of qualification of F.A/F.Sc. And who were placed in BS-9, and it was decided that all other teachers who do not possess higher qualification shall continue get existing pay scale with selection grade accordingly. Similarly second part dealt with Elementary School teachers and who possessed qualification of B.A./B.Sc. Plus existing professional training were placed in BS-14 with 1/3rd in selection grade BS-15 and it was ordered that all other teachers who do not possess higher qualification shall continue get existing pay scales with selection grade accordingly. Part 3 related to Arabic teachers and it was ordered that those who possess qualification of Trained Fazil with B.A./R.Sc. With five years teaching experience or M.A. Arabic or equivalent qualification shall be placed in BS-14 with 1/3rd in selection grade in BS-16. All other teachers who did not possess higher qualification shall continue getting existing pay scales with selection grade accordingly. Part 4 dealt with Secondary School Teachers and it was ordered that all the present and future Secondary School teachers with prescribed qualifications under the rules shall be placed in BS-16 with 1/3 rd selection in grade BS-17. 5th and last para of the notification ordered that the advance increments sanctioned by Finance Department in para. 15 of notification dated 25-8-1983 will not be admissible on acquiring/ possessing qualification for higher pay scales as sanctioned by the said notification (dated 26-6-1990). The tenor of the notification would show that in first three parts P.T.C. Teachers, Elementary School teachers and Arabic teachers were placed in higher scale, whereas Secondary School teachers, the part applicable to the appellant, the induction in service was in BS-16 and no higher scale was subsequently allowed, therefore part 5 relating to advance increments allowed vide notification 25-8-1983 could not be denied to them as they were not placed in a higher scale as in the case of Primary School teachers, Elementary School teachers and Arabic teachers. Moreover, the appellant got the advance increments vide notification dated 25-8-1983 on acquiring higher qualification of M.Ed. The subsequent notification dated 29-9-1990 applies only to those teachers who were placed in a higher scale, and the ratio decidendi was that two benefits at a time could not be allowed. Appellant having not been given additional benefit of placing him in higher scale as he was inducted in service in BS-16, could not be deprived of the advance increments allowed to him vide notification dated 25-8-1983 and clarified through another notification dated 29-9-1987. It therefore follows that part 5 of the impugned notification has wrongly taken away financial benefits granted to the appellant vide notification dated 25-8-1983.
7. The above discussion leads us to the result that the appeal has to be accepted. The appellant who acquired higher qualification of M.Ed. Is declared to be entitled to advance increments as laid down in the Finance Department's circular letter dated 25-8-1983 by accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned order without passing any order as to costs.