' LAL JAN KHATTAK J.--- Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant him the following relief:---
(i) "Annual increments be paid to the petitioner right from the year, 1989 till the retirement of the petitioner from his service, by fixing his pay according to the revised pay scales promotions/packages allowed by the respondents from time to time.
(ii) To allow promotion to the petitioner from BPS-16 to BPS-17 since 16-1-2001;
(iii) To allow further promotion to the petitioner from BPS-17 to BPS-18 having seven years service since 16-1-2001, in compliance of Circular No,RRR--23/2000 dated 31-7-2000.
(iv) To grant accrued fringe benefits for the period since 1989 to 2008 and arrears accrued thereon".
2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Accountant (BPS-16) in the then Telegraph & Telephone Department by the respondents on the recommendations of the Federal Public Service Commission, vide order No,E(I)17-8/85 dated 9-5-1988. It is the petitioner's case that on refusal by the respondents to allow him annual increment, he moved an application to the Chairman PTCL at Islamabad to grant him annual increments for December, 1989, December, 1990, December 1991, December, 1992 and December, 1993 but no action was taken on his application whereafter an other application was addressed to the Head of PTCL on 11-11-1995 but with no result. In the meanwhile the petitioner availed voluntary separation scheme and stood retired from service. He then filed a writ petition for the redressal of his grievance before this court which was disposed of on 8-10-2009 with a direction to submit an application afresh to PTCL for the grant of aforesaid increments which he did but such application was not accepted by the management of PTCL, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was very much entitled to the grant of annual increments but for no valid reasons the same were withheld by the respondents though were awarded to other persons who were placed at par with the petitioner. The learned counsel took strong exception to the discriminatory treatment metted out to the petitioner by the respondents.
4. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the desired writ argued that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed annual increments as he was lacking the prescribed qualifications and did not fulfil the conditions laid down for the grant of annual increments in his appointment order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Record of the case reveals that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents as Apprentice Accountant (BPS-16) on 9-5-1988 on the recommendations of the Federal Public Service Commission. According to the terms and conditions of his service the petitioner was held entitled to minimum of basic pay scale-16 with the admissible allowances under the usual conditions but a condition was attached in his appointment order to the effect that the petitioner will not be entitled to annual increment till his regular appointment as Accountant on qualifying the Departmental Accountants Examination. For reference, the above condition embodied in his appointment order is reproduced hereunder:--- "During the period of probation, you will be entitled to minimum of basic pay scale-16 (1350-185- 2925) and all the allowances as admissible under the usual conditions, but no annual increment will be admissible tilt your regular appointment as Accountant on qualifying the Departmental Accountants Examination" (underlining for emphasis).
7. In the parawise comments plea raised by the respondents is that till availing of VSS package the petitioner did not qualify the prescribed departmental examination passing of which was must to get annual increment as per terms and conditions of his service as contained in his appointment order dated 9th May, 1988. The above referred condition is a stumbling block in the way of the petitioner to claim the desired annual increments. The petitioner on 10th July, 2004 addressed an application to the head of PTCL for grant of exemption to him from PTCL departmental examination on account of his acquiring higher qualification of MBS and MS which fact shows that the petitioner was aware of the, condition necessary for enabling him to get annual increments but the desired exemption was not granted to him which refusal brings his case at squire one.
8. Even otherwise the petitioner has brought the issue of grant of annual increment to him at a very belated stage. He was appointed in the year 1988 and in his appointment order accrual of annual increment to him was made subject to his qualifying the departmental examination but since then he did not approach the proper forum for the redressal of his grievance till his availing the VSS package. Failure of the petitioner to timely agitate the issue is fatal to his case as law always enjoins aggrieved persons to avail the legal forum for the redressal of their grievances within the prescribed and reasonable time.
9. The point of discrimination taken by the petitioner with reference to one Muhammad Riaz Ranjha to whom annual increments have been granted is of no help to him as the respondents have taken the plea that Muhammad Riaz Ranjha was directly employed by the department while the petitioner was a recommendee of the Public Service Commission which had attached the condition of passing departmental examination to enable him for annual increments while in the appointment order of said Ranjha there was no such condition and as such his case is not at par with the petitioner. Therefore, there is no case of any discrimination.
10. For the above discussion and reasons we found that no case has been made out by the petitioner for issuance of a writ as prayed by him. Therefore, the instant writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.