' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioner secured appointed as a Secondary School Teacher (SST) in District Sargodha in BS-15 in the respondents/Education Department. During the service, petitioner appeared and passed M.A.
(Urdu) Examination held by the Punjab University in July, 2000 and his result was declared by the Punjab University on 28-4-2001. The petitioner submitted application through the head of the institution for grant of three advance increments for possessing higher academic qualification in accordance with para. 15 of the Government policy dated 25-8-1983. Executive District Officer (Education), Sargodha accepted the application for grant of three increments w,e,f, 28-4-2001 vide order, dated 16-4-2003. The District Accounts Officer did not pay the increased amount in terms of order, dated 16-4-2003 of the Executive District Officer (Education), Sargodha on the ground that matter was still pending awaiting advice from the Finance Department, Government of Punjab.
Petitioner being aggrieved filed representation before the Accountant-General, Punjab who did to pass any order on his representation. Petitioner being aggrieved filed Appeal No,2023 of 2003 in the Punjab Service Tribunal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide judgment, dated 22-12-2003 and the case was remanded to the Accountant-General Punjab to decide the representation of the petitioner with reasons. The Accountant-General, Punjab did not pass any order on the representation of the petitioner in spite of the directions of the learned Service Tribunal. Petitioner being aggrieved filed Appeal No,386 of 2004 in the Punjab Service Tribunal who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment, dated 9-6-2004. Hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondent is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. He further urges that learned Service Tribunal had passed inconsistent judgments wherein the learned Service Tribunal refused to grant three increments to the petitioner vide impugned judgment whereas the learned Service Tribunal had granted three increments to Syed Musa Raza vide judgment dated 28-6-2003. He further urges that learned Service Tribunal erred in law to decide the case against the petitioner in view of law laid down by this Court in Faqir Hussain's case 2004 PLC (C.S.) 491. He further urges that action of the respondent is in violation of the consistent departmental interpretation adopted by the Education Department in the matter of grant of advance increments to the teachers with higher qualification. He further urges that learned Service Tribunal erred in law to rely on the precedent case in Faqir Hussain's case (supra) by mistaken of the interpretation of the rules made in the precedent case.
3. We have given our due consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant notifications to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- Granting increments notification dated 25th August, 1983 "Revision of pay Scales-Scheme of Basic pay scales and fringe benefits of the Punjab Government employees (1983)
(15) Advance increments to School Teachers on attaining higher qualifications Primary, Middle and High School Teachers who possess or acquire while in service higher qualifications shall be allowed advance increments as under:--
(III) 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."
' Amendment of Rules vide notification dated 8th January, 1987 ' Punjab Education Department School, Education Recruitment Rules, 1987.
Schedule. Minimum Qualifications:-- Secondary School Teachers BS-I5B.A./B.Sc. And B.Ed./B.T. From a recognized University or equivalent qualifications or higher qualifications e.g. M.A. In Education. Matric with Primary Teacher certificate from a recognized institution."
' Upgradation Notification dated 26th June, 1990 "No, S.O. (Confdl.S)1-13/90. The Governor of the Punjab is pleased to order the following scales of pay/benefits to various categories of teachers as mentioned hereunder with immediate effect:---
4. Secondary School TeachersAll the present and future Secondary School Teachers with prescribed qualifications under the Rules shall be placed in BPS-16 with 1/3rd in Selection Grade BS-17. .........................................................................................................................................
The advance increments sanctioned by Finance Department in para.l5 of their letter No,F.D.P.C.2-1/83, dated 25-8- 1983 will not be admissible on acquiring/possessing qualifications for which higher pay scales are being sanctioned in this notification".
' Notification dated 27th July, 2002 "Grant of three advance increments for possessing/acquiring higher qualification of M.A.
(Edu)/M.Ed. To SSTs.
(i) When the M.A. (Education) has been declared a prescribed qualification, there is no question of granting advance increments for M.A./M.Sc. As it is also a Master's degree.
(ii) As in subpara. (i) above."
4. The contention of learned counsel of the petitioner that learned Service Tribunal had rendered impugned judgment in violation of principle of consistency has no force as the respondents filed Civil Petition No,2556-L of 2003 against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 28-6-2003 passed in Syed Musa Raza's case which was converted into appeal and appeal was allowed in the following terms:-- "One of the prescribed qualifications for recruitment as Secondary School Teachers is M.A. In Education as well. The Government of the Punjab vide Notification No,SO(PI)6- 2/84(Misc.) dated 15-7-1985 declared equal the degree of M.A. In Education with the degree of M.Ed. Of the Institute of Education and Research of the University of the Punjab. Therefore, M.Ed. Qualification acquired by the respondent on 1-3-2001 is to be treated as equal to M.A. Education, which is one of the prescribed qualifications for being recruited as SST. Hence, the qualification of M.Ed. Acquired by the respondent could not be termed or treated as higher qualification. Even otherwise, the Government of the Punjab Education Department vide its Notification No,SO(Cont) 1-13/90, dated 26-6-1990, declared that the advance increments sanctioned by Finance Department vide its above said notification dated 25-8-1983 will not be admissible on acquiring/possessing qualifications for which higher pay scale were being sanctioned in the said notification and under Sr. No,4 of the said notification, all the present and future Secondary School Teachers with prescribed qualifications under the rules were directed to be placed in BS-16 with 1/3rd in Selection Grade BS-17.
' In view of the above mentioned, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The impugned judgment dated 7-7-2003 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal is set aside. However, the increments already received by the respondent, under the orders of the competent authority,.Shall not be asked to be refunded."
5. In case the aforesaid notifications and rules are put in juxta-position, then it is crystal clear that petitioner is not entitled to advance increments after securing qualification in M.A. (Urdu) Which had already declared equivalent to M.Ed. Coupled with the fact that for the initial recruitment for the post in question the competent authority had prescribed qualification of M.Ed. In the year 1987 whereas the petitioner secured qualification of M.A. In the year 2001. It is pertinent to mention here that competent authority had used the word higher qualification asA mentioned in para. 15 in the basic notification dated 25-8-1983. It is I settled principle of law that in case the word is not defined in the rules, then the meaning of the word must be understood as defined in English Dictionary. In other words the meaning of dictionary is relevant to understand intention of the policy maker as it is an elementary principle of interpretation of statutes that when a particular word is not defined in B a statute, Courts are to give it the natural plain dictionary meaning and that where the meaning is supposed to, depict the intention of the lawmakers. It is not possible to clothe the ordinary words with meanings drawn from other Acts when the words used in the statute are themselves unambiguous. The word "higher" means according to Chambers English Dictionary "higher" means more advanced than ordinary grade. Similarly higher grade means to raise higher to lift, somewhat high, in a high degree and in a high position. As mentioned above according to the rules of 1987 the qualification prescribed for the post in question is M.Ed. And M.A. (Urdu) is not higher than that of M.Ed. In any sense. It is also a settled principle of law that Courts cannot add any word in the rules/ notifications as the Courts have only jurisdiction to interpret the law, therefore, in the garb of interpretation this Court has no jurisdiction to add any words in the rules or notification. In case the contention of counsel of the petitioner is accepted then it means that this Court add words in the notifications/rules as additional qualification instead of higher qualification which is not in consonance with the intention, object and purpose of the policy maker.##TE It is a settled principle of law that this Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law as the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Ziaur Rehman's case PLD 1973 SC 49, Hakim Ali's case PLD 1992 SC 595 and Mian' Nawaz Sharif's case PLD 1993 SC 473. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role of policy maker. See Zamir Ahmad Khan's case PLD 1975 SC 667 and amir Ahmad Khan's case 1978 SCMR 327. The contentions of learned counsel of the petitioner that action of the respondent is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution and in violation of the consistent practice of the respondents have also no force. As mentioned above, respondents are consistent to their practice in terms of the notification dated 27th July, 2002 mentioned hereinabove (page 50 of the present paper book) and also challenged the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal rendered in Syed Musa Raza's case. It is an admitted fact that respondents as well as the learned Service Tribunal had given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that this Court is not Court of appeal against the action of the respondents as the law laid down by this Court in Javaid Aziz Qureshi's case 1998 SCMR 2553.
This Court normally cannot interfere in the concurrent conclusions of the Tribunals below while exercising power under Article 212(3) of the Constitution as the law laid down by this Court in Maqbool Ahmad Khan's case 2001 SCMR 1909. The learned counsel has failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance as contemplated in Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Leave is declined accordingly.