The appellant, who is working as a Special Ticket Examiner in the Sukkur Division of the Railway, passed the B. A. Degree in the year 1964 and was awarded a lump sum of Rs, 1,000 in lieu of 4 advance increments under the Incentive Scheme. Subsequently, in the year 1966, he passed the LL.
B. Examination and claimed 4 advance increments in respect of that examination under the incentive scheme. As his claim was rejected by the Railway administration, he preferred a grievance petition to the learned Labour Court which has dismissed the same inter alia on the ground that award of benefits under Part (D) of the incentive scheme, upon which the claim of the appellant is fo-mded, can only be granted once and not repeatedly. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Labour Court, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Viroomal Brigani for the appellant and Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan for the respondent. The main contention of Mr. Viroomal was that Part (D) of the incentive scheme entitles a person acquiring prescribed qualifications to the benefits provided under the said part and that on each occasion that any qualification referred to in that part is acquired by the concerned official he is entitled to advance increments under the said scheme. On the other hand, the contention of Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan is that Part (D) of the scheme evisages award of advance increments, once on the acquiring of the prescribed qualification and not repeatedly. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the 2 learned counsel, it would be appropriate to set down Part (D) of the scheme in extenso. It reads as follows :- {{TABLE}} "(D) Class III Staff : Al! Departments :- Acquisition of qualifications prescribed for Class II Officer, in---
(1) Motive (Power) and Mech. Engineer-1 Four advance mere.' ing Departments :- ruents.
(2) Electrical Engineering Department ; J or
(3) Stores Department ;
(4) Signal Engineering Department ; , When no increment is ?' due Rs, 1 1,000 in lump SUM.
(1) Civil Engineering Department ;
(2) Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial Department ;
(7) Personnel Branch ; Medical Department ; 1 They should also be given special consideration for selection to Class II posts. {{TABLE}} Notes.--Benefits admissible to employees of personnel Branch shall be given only to those who have acquired the additional qualifications during the course of their employment in the personnel Branch and only while they are serving in the personnel Branch. The benefits shall be admissible if the qualifications are acquired after recruitment to Class II."
3. A bare perusal of the provisions of the aforesaid Part II make it clear, firstly, that the advance increments provided under the said part are to be awarded only once, and that secondly, the advantage of 4 advance increments is admissible only to Class III Staff of specified Departments who have acquired the qualifications prescribed for Class It Officers in their respective Departments. Now leaving aside for the time being the question whether the grant of 4 advance increments under Part (D) of the scheme can be awarded on more than one occasion, the appellant would be entitled to the advance increments or other benefits provided under this part if the passing of LL. B. Examination is a prescribed qualification for Class II Officers in the Transportation, Traffic and Commercial Departments. Mr. Viroomal was unable to show me what are the qualifications prescribed for Class II Officers in the Transportation Department of the Railway. He, however, relied on Part (C) (ii) of the scheme, according to which passing of the LL. B.
Degree entitles a Class II Officers 2 advance increments or where no increment is due an amount of Rs, 1,000 in lump sum. There is, however, a note under this part to the effect that the benefits shall be admissible if the qualifications are acquired after promotion to Class II service. As the appellant is still in Class Ill Service, he would not be entitled either to the benefits under Part (C) (ii) of the scheme or Part (D) of the scheme.
4. Reverting back to the question whether the benefits of Part (D) of the scheme can be awarded on more than one occasion or repeatedly, as claimed by Mr. Viroomal, I am of the view that this contention does not find support from the language employed in the aforesaid part of the scheme.
If the intention had been that on the acquisition of each separate qualification the benefits of Part
(D) would become admissible, the language of the said part would have been materially different.
Al though after obtaining of the benefits under Part (D) of the scheme, the Railway employee would not be entitled to the benefits under the said part, even if he further improves his qualifications, he would nevertheless be entitled to reimbursement of all expenses incurred in connection with the passing of the examination, as provided in Part (A) of the scheme. It is admitted on behalf of the appellant that he has been reimbursed these expenses. His claim, however, is for the second award of benefits under Part (D), to which benefits, in my view, he is not entitled.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. I would accordingly dismiss the same.