Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1980 PLC (C. S.) 279 (2)

YAR MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION

Citation1980 PLC (C. S.) 279 (2)
CourtPunjab Service Tribunal
Case No.Appeal No. 155/50 of 1977
Date1979-12-29
Judge(s)Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry, Mazhar Muneer, S. Hafeez-Ur-Rehman
ResultAppeal allowed

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-----The appellant, Yar Mohammad, an untrained graduate teacher, claims the scale of payment for Senior English Teachers on the basis of a decision taken by the Education Department and the Finance Department whereby untrained B.As., and B.Scs., working against posts of S. E. Ts., were approved for the minimum of the S.E.T. Scale with effect from 1st July, 1973.

2. The appeal was opposed by the respondent department and the learned Government Pleader whose point of view was that the appellant had been declared surplus in his own nationalised school (Islamia High School, Wara Alam Shah, District Gujrat) and in order to avoid hardship had been adjusted against an S.E.T. Post in Government Millat High School, Head Rasul, District Gujrat.

The adjustment was conditional, viz. Being a purely stop-gap arrangement the appellant would be working there in his own pay and grade and would have no right of appointment against that post.

3. The appellant was heard. His contention was that since he was working against a post of S.E.T. He should get the benefit accorded to all other untrained graduate teachers, and that too with effect from 1st July, 1973.

4. We find considerable force in the appellant's contention. He was adjusted against a S.E.T, post on 9th April, 1975. The Government order according approval of S.E.T. Scale for untrained graduates was made with only one condition that these graduates should have been working against posts of S.E.Ts. On 1st October, 1972 when private schools were nationalised. To deprive the appellant of this scale merely because he was adjusted against a S.E.T. Post on becoming surplus would be unjust. His qualifications are the same as of the untrained graduate teachers and to withhold the S.E.T. Scale from him because his adjustment on becoming surplus constituted a favour amounts to detracting from a good deed. Actually no condition should have been imposed to start with and he should have been treated like other untrained graduate teachers.

5. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the S.E.T. Scale as given to other untrained graduate teachers, but not from 1 July, 1973 as claimed by him because at that time no S.E.T. Post was vacant in his old school. He should be given the scale with effect from 9th April, 1975 the date when he was adjusted in the Government Millat High School against a S.E.T. Post.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch