Justice (R) Shoaib Saeed, Chairman.--That notices to be served on Respondents 1 and 3 to 6 were sent through registered post on 18.4,2017 & 19.5.2017 but none put in appearance. Later service was sought by an alternate mode through a proclamation in Daily Nawa-e-Waqat which was published in the said newspaper on 25.8.2017, none of the respondents put in appearance they were declared and proceeded ex-parte on 18.9.2017.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that appellant was appointed as PTC teacher on 21.08.1989. He was awarded SV grade on 24.12.1996. He passed B.Ed examination in the year 1996 and did M.A. from the University of Punjab in Political Science in the year 1998, later M.A in Pakistan Studies in the 1st Annual Examination 2016.
3. The department promoted/awarded SST grade BS-16 to Respondents No, 3 to 5 vide order dated 6.2.2006 and later vide order dated 24.6.2010 to Respondent No,
6. That Respondents No, 3 to 6 were appointed in the year 1993 were junior to appellant were promoted. Thereafter, appellant filed departmental appeal against the said order which was not decided within the stipulated period.
Appellant filed Appeal No, 2532/2008 before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 22.07.2010 passed in Appeal No, 1439/2008 with direction to the appellant to knock the door of the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan remanded the case to the Tribunal for decision afresh vide order dated 13.07.2011. Later, vide order dated 13.03.2013 by this Tribunal passed in Appeal No, 1439/2008 which was disposed of with direction to EDO (Education) to decide the matter expeditiously keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan within a period of three months. EDO (Education) dismissed appeal of the appellant vide order dated 13.8.2013. Thereafter, appellant filed departmental appeal before DCO, Rawalpindi which was not decided within a stipulated period. Appellant filed Appeal No, 4532/2014 before PST which was disposed of with direction to DCO to decide departmental appeal of the appellant within a period of 30 days vide order dated 21.01.2016. DCO dismissed departmental appeal of the appellant vide order dated 19.11.2016. Hence this service appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was appointed as PTC teacher on 21.08.1989, he passed his B.Ed examination in the year 1996. That Respondents No, 3 to 5 were appointed as PST on 11.5.1993 in BS-9 and Respondent No, 6 was also; appointed as PTC teacher on 12.5.1993 and he passed B.Ed, examination in the year 2004. That junior most teachers were allowed SST grade vide order dated 6.2.2006 by ignoring the appellant who joined Education Department much prior to them. Respondent No, 6 who joined Education Department as PTC teacher on 12.5.1993 was allowed SST grade on 24.06.2010, later he was allowed back benefits on 04.04.2013 w,e,f, 06.02.2006. It is argued that service Tribunal in service Appeal No, 3510/2007 filed by Muhammad Shafi (Respondent No, 6 in this appeal) found him entitled for the grant of SST grade (BS-16) from the date when Respondents No, 3 to 5 were given the same grade. Appellant has filed the instant appeal with the prayer that he be declared as entitled for the grant of SST Grade (BS- 16) as he is eligible for the same from the date when his juniors i,e, Respondents. No, 3 to 6 had been allowed the said grade.
5. Learned District Attorney resisted the appeal on the ground that department was earlier following the policy/rules of 1974 and criteria at that time for grant of SST grade against in-service quota was seniority-cum-fitness and in-service teachers who had passed B.Ed, examination first were awarded SST grade (BS-16) in that order.
6.. That now after several judgments of this Tribunal in the matter which were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, Education Department is following the new policy/rules w,e,f, 13.5.2006 and according to the said policy, promotion are given on the basis of length of service. That in view of amendment in Section 8 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 whereby promotion is allowed with immediate effect/actualization, therefore, appellant is not entitled for grant of SST grade from back date. Appellant also stands at Serial No, 421 in the seniority list, hence his claim is premature and is liable to be rejected.
7. Arguments heard, record perused.
8. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Respondent No, 6 was appointed as PTC teacher on 12.05.1993 after the appointment of appellant on 21.8.1989 but was granted SST grade on 24.06.2010 w,e,f, 06.02.2006 despite being much. junior. Departmental Representative stated that Respondent No, 6 was not granted SST grade by the department, rather he was granted the same grade by Punjab Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 25.06.2008 passed in Appeal No, 3510/2007.
9. As per record Respondent No, 6/Muhammad Shafi was appointed as PTC teacher and he obtained B.Ed, degree in the year 2004 whereas appellant joined Education Department as PTC teacher on 21.08.1989 and did his B.Ed, in 1996. Respondent No, 6/Muhammad Shafi undeniably was junior to appellant. Respondent No, 6 was awarded SST grade w,e,f, 06.02.2006 vide order dated 24.06.2010 passed by EDO (Edu) Rawalpindi in pursuance of the judgment of the PST and Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Education department decided to award SST Grade-16 to in-service candidates according to their quota on the criteria of possessing B.A., B.Ed degree at the time of consideration of award of SST grade. Similarly in service Appeal No, 2266/2004 titled Qari Hassan Din vs Director Public Instructions (SE), Punjab, Lahore and two others followed in another service Appeal No, 104/2011 titled Mahrban Khan vs DCO, Rawalpindi and other, this Tribunal delivered judgments respectively on 13.4.2005 and 8.6.2015 on the basis of length of service. Para No, 5 and 6 of the judgment of this Tribunal delivered in service Appeal No, 2266/2004 is reproduced as below: "5. Section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 envisages the following criteria for determining the seniority:-- "Seniority in a post, service or cadre to which a civil servant is promoted, shall take into effect from the date of regular appointment to that post"
Further Rule 8(i)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 envisages the continuous appointment in the grade, as a touchstone to determine seniority.
6. It seems that the criteria adopted by the Education Department for award of SST grade to in- service lower grace teachers as reproduced in the preceding paragraph is in direct conflict with Section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 as well as Rule 8(1)(b) of the Punjab/civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. What we have to see is that when a teacher applies for award of SST Grade in BS-16 or when the department calls applications for award of such grade, the Concerned teacher is possessed with the required qualification which was fixed as B.Ed. irrespective of the date when he obtained it. While. awarding the grade of SST the touchstone should be in accordance with Section 7 ibid and Rule 8 ibid i,e, continuous service from the date of appointment to a particular grade. Both appellant and Respondent No, 3 entered service on different dates in BS-9. Whether Respondent No, 3 obtained degree of B.Ed, earlier than the appellant, is insignificant. The only material date is 28.1.1999 on which Respondent No, 3 was awarded SST grade has to be taken into consideration and it has to be seen whether on the said date, appellant did possess the required qualification to make him eligible for seeking award of SST, the answer is in the affirmative."
10. The ratio determined in judgments of this Tribunal was in accord with Rule 7(1)(b) of Punjab Civil Servants. (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1974. and Section 8 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 wherein the criteria is continuous appointment in the grade.
11. The Government of Punjab in December 2008 u/S. 23 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 framed rules for appointment to the a post of SST (BS-16), accordingly 50% posts were to be filled by initial recruitment and 50% posts to be filled by promotion from amongst the ESTs on the basis of length of service from the date of regular appointment.
12.That appellant is senior to Respondents No, 3 to 6, therefore, on the touchstone of length of service he was also entitled for the same relief as was granted to Respondents No, 3 to 5 w,e,f, 6.2.2006 and later to Respondent No, 6 w,e,f, 24.6.2010 with all back benefits whereby they were promoted as SST (BS-16). That contention of the District Attorney that appellant stood at Serial No, 421 in seniority list, hence his claim was premature, is nullified by the fact that a junior teacher in the seniority list at 792 was also allowed SST (BS-16) with all back benefits.
13.Reliance placed on Hamid Akhtar Niazi case 1996 SCM R 1185 wherein it was observes: "We may observe that if the Tribunal of this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum."
13A. The upshot of the above, appeal is accepted, impugned orders are set aside and appellant is found entitled for appointment through promotion as SST grade (BS-16) from the date when his juniors i,e, Respondents No, 3 to 6 were promoted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.