M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).---The three appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 3- 12-1978 made by respondent No. 2 refusing to grant them five advance increments.
2. Brief facts on the case are that on 6-12-1975 the Government decided to grant five advance increments to engineering graduates, persons holding a Master's degree in the physical and natural sciences and lecturers of colleges. Upon this, Instructors/Senior Instructors of polytechnics, technical colleges and commercial institutes made a representation against their non-inclusion in the list of beneficiaries. This representation was placed by the Punjab Government before the Provincial Coordination Committee headed by the Federal Minister of -Education. The Committee, on 9/10th May, 1977, decided as follows:- "The Instructors/Senior Instructors of Polytechnic/Technical Colleges/ Commercial Institutes who are employed in Grade 17 be granted five advance increments which will however, be due with effect from 30th April, 1977, and merged into the pay for fixation under the new scales from 1st May, 1977."
3. The Punjab Government accepted the decision of the Provincial Coordination Committee with the proviso that the concession will be available to Instructors/Senior Instructors appointed on a regular basis in NPS-17 in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules and actually holding these posts on 30-4-1977 and, in any case, not to new entrants who are appointed on these posts on or after 1-5-1977. The appellants, being still ad hoc even after years of service were not allowed the concession.
4. The parties were heard. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the decision of the Provincial Coordination Committee was binding on the Punjab Government, since the latter had, of its own, placed the matter before the Committee. Moreover, the Committee had placed no riders on its decision and the Punjab Government's order restricting the scope of the concession was wrong and unjust. The respondent's contention was that the Punjab Government was not bound to follow the decision of the Provincial Coordination Committee which functioned in a recommendatory capacity only. In any case, the concession of five advance increments could not be given to the appellants who were not regularly appointed but were serving on ad hoc basis, because in the case of college lecturers also the concession was not granted to ad hoc appointees.
5. The appellants being Provincial employees, their terms and conditions were to be determined by the Government of the Punjab. We are inclined to agree with the Government Pleader that the decision of the Provincial Coordination Committee was only a recommendation to the Provincial Government and the operative decision in the case of the appellant was the one issued by the Provincial Government on 19-1-1978. (Annex. `F' to this appeal). The aforesaid decision in terms does not entitle the appellants to. The concession of five advance increments and we are not inclined to pass any order against the Department. However, we find that the appellants could not be brought on regular basis for no fault of their although they have been serving on their posts since 2-10-1974, 21-10-74 and 22-3-1975, respectively against clear vacancies in which otherwise they fulfilled the requisite qualifica--tions. For the consideration above, their cases were also recommended favourably by the Director, Technical Education. We also find that in the matter of pay the distinction between ad hoc employees and the regular employees does not exist anywhere. In fact the decision of the Provincial Coordination Committee dated 9-10-1977 reproduced in this judgment was also taken in the presence of the representative of the Province most probably the Governor of the Province. Thus in our opinion there does not exist any sound basis to make any distinction between the appellants and the regular employees. We, therefore, recommend that the cases of the appellants may be treated at par with the cases of regular employees appointed on the comparable dates.
6. With the observations above, we dispose of this appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs.