' Jawad-Ul-Hassan, Member-II.--The writ petitions bearing numbers 18355/2014, 25395/2013 and 25186/2014 were filed in the honorable Lahore High Court, Lahore by the writ petitioners. The details of said petitioners have been sufficiently given in the caption of the instant judgment. The honorable Lahore High Court disposed of above mentioned Writ Petitions (No, 18355/2014, 25395/2013) vide order dated 27.1.2015 (separately passed). The honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore in view of an order dated 1.1.2015 by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in CP No, 322-L to 339-L of 2014 transmitted the record of the writ petition (ibid) for treating the same as service appeals and decision in accordance with law. When these petitions were received by this Tribunal, all both the petitions were assigned appeals number on 19.2.2015 (695/2015) and 698/2015) respectively.
2. The record of Writ Petition No, 25186/2014 was received from the honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore in pursuance of an order dated 28.1.2015 whereby the honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore in view of order dated 1.1.2015 passed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 322-L to 339- L of 2014 transmitted the record of the said writ petition to this Tribunal with the direction to treat it as service appeal and decide the same in accordance with law. When this petition was received by this Tribunal, the same was assigned appeal number on 10.3.2015 (1283/2015).
3.Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the instant cases, therefore, we intend to dispose of all the titled service appeals through this single judgment. The writ petitioners hereinafter shall be called as appellants in their respective appeals. They claimed the following relief:-- 1.Appeal No, 695/2015 (Writ Petition No, 18355/2014 Prayer ' Under the submissions made above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant the advance increments to the petitioners in terms of Para No, 15(iii) of Notification No-FD-PC.2- 1/83 dated 25.8.1983.
' Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioners.
2.Appeal No, 698/2015 (Writ Petition No, 25395/2013 ' Prayer ' It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant the advance increments to the petitioners in terms of Para No, 15(iii) of Notification No, FD-P.C2-1/83 dated 25.8.1983 read with Punjab Service Tribunal judgment dated 4.10.2010, Supreme Court's judgment in CP Nos. 16 to 20/2011 dated 26.5.2011 and High Court's order in Writ Petition No, 8395/2012 dated 7.11.2012 ' Any other relief deems fit and proper may also be awarded."
3: Appeal No, 1283/2015 (Writ Petition No, 25186/2014)
' Prayer ' In view of the matter, it is respectfully prayed that appropriate writ may kindly be issued and impugned orders dated 12.5.2009 and 14.5.2009 issued by the Respondent No, 3 may kindly be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The letters dated 3.11.2014 and 13.10.2005 issued by the Respondent No, 1 may also be declared illegal, unlawful, discriminatory and passed in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
' It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to implement the order dared 17.9.2003 issued by the Respondent No, 5 the Executive District Officer (Education), Kasur, whereby the petitioners have been granted advance increments, on the basis of higher qualification, in the interest of justice and fair play.
' It is further prayed that captioned writ petition may also be allowed in terms of order dated 23.5.2014 passed in Writ Petition No, 12868 for the reason enumerated in judgment dated 23.5.2014 passed in Writ Petition No, 24065/2013, in the interest of justice and fairplay.
' Any other relief, which this honorable Court deems fit and properly in the facts and circumstances of the case may also graciously be awarded.
4.The appellants in Appeals No, 695/2015 and 698/2015 claimed themselves as Graduate. English Teachers in BS-14 whereas the appellant in Service Appeal No, 1283/2015 are Secondary School Teachers of District Kasur. The appellants in Service Appeal No, 695/2013 and 698/2013 claimed the benefit of Notification No, FDPC.2-1/83 dated 25.8.1983 in terms of Para No, 15(iii) regarding their advance increments on account of acquiring higher qualifications which according to them were denied. According to the bereavements of their appeals they applied for the benefits including the benefits under Notification No, FD-PC.2-1/83 dated 25.8.1983. In addition to this, they claimed their entitlements in view of judgment of this Tribunal dated 4.10.2010 passed in Service Appeal No, 1545/2010 which was confirmed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in CP No, 1620/L of 2011. So far as the appellants in Service Appeal No, 1283/2015 are concerned, they challenged two orders dated 14.5.2009 and 12.5.2009 passed by the District Accounts Officer according to 'which the benefits of advance increment were denied in view of some notification of the Finance Department as such benefits are not admissible after 1.12.2001.
5.Learned counsels for the appellants contended that the Finance Department vide notification dated 25.8.1983 had actually allowed the advance increments to those teachers who have acquired higher education and in this regard the department completely ignored the appellants failed to treat the appellants at par with those teaches to whom such remedy was granted by this Tribunal as well as by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The appellants were meted out with discrimination, therefore, they are entitled for the relief of advance increments.
6. Learned District Attorney assisted by the Departmental Representative opposed the contentions of the learned counsels for the appellants and stated that no representation was made by the appellants individually or collectively and no departmental appeal was preferred therefore, the appeals are not maintainable.
7. Arguments heard and record perused.
8. It was asserted that the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No, 1545/2010 concluded that the teachers (who have acquired higher education during the course of their service) were entitled for advance incumbents in view of notification in question. The pit and substance of the claim is that they claimed advance increments in view of the notification ibid. None of the appellants through independent or joint representation placed their such request to the competent authority as defined by the Punjab School Education Department Service Rules, 1987 as amended on 24.12.2008.
According to these rules, in case of Graduate English Teacher/ESTs the competent authority was DEO (M& F`-EE) concerned. The appellants namely Munsha Gohar and Tanzeela Arib did not challenge the impugned orders dated 14.5.2009 and 12.5.2009 before the departmental authorities in view of Section 21 of the PCS Act, 1974. They have not processed their case accordingly through competent authority and likewise, all the appellants did not file any departmental appeal against any adverse order (if any). They opted to file the writ petitions without assailing any of the orders before the appellate authority as envisaged by the Section 21 of the PCS Act, p74. There is no independent and specific order against each appellants whereby the competent authority would have denied the benefit of advance increments in view of notification mentioned above. Before approaching the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 the aggrieved (appellants) should have filed an appeal, review, or representation as may be provided for under the rules, before the departmental authority. The filing of representation and departmental appeal is the precondition to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Reference can be made to proviso of Section 4 of the PST Act, 1974 and Sharwani and others's case (see 1991 SCMR 1041). While interpreting Sections 4 & 3 of the Service Tribunal Act, (LXX of 1973) (which is akin to Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974) discussed and interpreted that the Act provides a right of an appeal before the service tribunal to a civil servant if he is aggrieved by any final order whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of his terms and conditions of civil service. It was observed in the said case that such exercise of right of appeal before the tribunal is subject to clause (a) which provides a precondition of filing of service appeal by providing that an aggrieved civil servant before approaching the service tribunal should file an appeal, review, or representation as may be provided for under the relevant rules before the appellate authority.
9. Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 has created a forum of departmental appeal against the orders. It further provides the period of limitation during which the departmental appeal can be filed. According to this section a period of clear-cut 60 days was provided in this regard. According to the proviso of Section 4(i) of the PST Act, 1974 where an appeal, review or representation is provided under PST Act, 1974 or any other rules against an such order no appeal before this Tribunal shall be filed unless an aggrieved civil servant has filed the appeal, application for review or representation to the departmental authority and the period of 90 days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal or representation was so preferred. In Raja, Khan's case (2011 PLC (CS) 856) the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:-- "It is the settled proposition of law that when an appeal of the employee was time barred before the appellate authority then the appeal before the Tribunal was also not competent in view of the various pronouncements of this Court. See Chairman, PIA and others v. Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951) and Muhammad Aslam vs. WAPDA and others (2007 SCMR 513).
' Further held in paragraph 6 that the appeal of the petitioner before the Service Tribunal is incompetent under Section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Since the petitioner has filed the appeal before the Tribunal without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Section 4 in regard to limitation and the Court cannot compromise on limitation."
10. The appellants have not produced any authenticated record of representation made to the competent authority jointly or severely and decision thereon. Likewise, they have not provided any record qua their departmental appeal which would have been dismissed. They simulated, by way of invoking the jurisdiction of the Honourable Lahore High Court for issuance of direction to the Education Department to extent of benefit of notification issued for the purpose of grant of advance increment, instead of filing the service appeal before this Tribunal in time. The appellants have failed to adopt prescribed mode and manner for redressal of their grievance. Even at this stage it is not known whether their testimonials of academic qualifications were got verified by the Department from the concerned quarter or not. It is established principle of law and jurisprudence that the things are required to be done strictly in accordance with law OR it should not be done at all. In a matter of HUMAN RIGHTS CASE No, 4668 of 2006, 1111, of 2007 and 15283-G I of 2010, the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as follows.
"The other principle of jurisprudence in this very context is that the things are required to be done strictly accordingly to law, or it should not be done at all. Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Mir Dost Muhammad v. Gout of Balochistan (PLD 1980 Quetta 1), relevant para therefrom is reproduced below:-- "It is well settled principle of law that in a case where statute provides a procedure for doing of a thing in a particular manner, that thing should be done in that manner and in no other way or it should not be done at all. Indeed such statute impliedly prohibits doing of thing in any other manner; particularly when the procedure is laid down for taking proceedings before a Tribunal or Court where such procedure before a Court or Tribunal is usually construed to be an imperative once as doing of the act or a thing under that statute is a condition precedent to conferring upon the jurisdiction on a Court or a tribunal as the case may be. The compliance of such act or thing in no way could be either ignored or dispensed with. Their noncompliance would certainly invalidate all the proceedings, orders, made or passed by the same authority or any other authority either superior or inferior thereto in respect of the same. Our views get support from the cases. "
(underlined are mine)
The service appeals are filed against orders except (disciplinary proceedings) under Section 4 of the PST Act, 1974 which prescribed a time' f limitation of 90 days plus 30 days. These appeals were received by this Tribunal on 19.2.2015 (except the Appeal No, 1283/2015 which was received on 10.3.2015) against no specific order. None of the appellants filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Forum. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that the time consumed in writ petitions is liable to be excluded in calculation of days qua filing of the appeals.
11. Such kind of question also came before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Suleman's case (see 2012 SCMR 80). The facts of the case were that non-promotion order was challenged before the Service Tribunal statedly filed beyond limitation. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:-- "The submission that during this period the petitioner also approached the High Court, suffice it to say that such action of the petitioner was absolutely irrelevant and would not extend the period of limitation."
12.The service appeals, (Appeals No, 696/2015, 713/2015, 711/2015, 710/2015, 712/2015, 702/2015, 694/2015 864/2015, 714/2015, 707/2015, 709/2015, 704/2015, 700/2015, 703/2015, 706/2015, 705/2015, 701/2015), which have been received to this Tribunal in pursuance of order dated 1.1.2015 passed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in CP Nos. 322-L to 339-L of 2014, have already been dismissed by this Tribunal on the same premises vide order dated 9.6.2016.
12.None of the appellants has filed any departmental appeal before the competent authority against the order of authority whereby their claim would have been declined qua award of advance increments on attaining the higher educating during the course of their service. In view of the bar contained Section 4(i) of the PST Act, 1974 the appeals are not maintainable in the eye of law. Thus, all the appeals are dismissed.