UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---A common question of law that arises for determination in these connected appeals is whether the respondents are entitled to the grant of annual increments for the period of two years training undergone by them at the Walton Training Academy , Lahore ("Academy "). The respondents were appointed by the appellants as Apprentice Loco Cleaners on different dates during the period 1988 till 2004 and sent for training on the T-4 course for a period of two years at the Academy . After qualifying the training course, the respondents were inducted into regular service and posted on posts at different stations in the Railways service. The claim for payment of annual increments attributable to the two years period of T-4 training course was filed by the respondents on different dates in the year 2017. In their service appeals the respondents explained that their claims were being filed pursuant to a judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal ("FST") dated 01.03.2016 titled Sohail Iqbal and others v. Pakistan Railways allowing the grant of annual increments to similarly placed employees of the appellants. This judgment was given by the learned FST in 16 connected appeals. It was assailed before this Court in Chairman Pakistan Railways, Islamabad and another v. Saleem Akhtar and others (Civil Petitions Nos. 1038 to 1054 of 2018) but these petitions were dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2018 on account of being time barred. Consequently , the judgment of the learned FST in Sohail labal's case dated 01.03.2016 attained finality and was duly implemented.
2. Based squarely on that judgment the learned FST has decided the appeals filed by the present respondents during the year 2017 and 2018. The mate rial portion of the Sohail Iqbal judgment that is quoted in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment is reproduced below: "8. We have given careful consideration to the notice which was issued by Divisional Superintendent, Multan on 26.04.2014 on the basis of letter of G.M. (Power), Pakistan Railways, Headquarte rs, Lahore dated 20.04.1987. It was mentioned therein that the period between completion of training and assumption of duty may be treated as on duty for grant of annual increment. On the other hand, the appellants were held disentitled for annual increments during the training period. The inconsistency and discrimination, in the policy of the respondent department, is floating on the surface of the record. Why the said financial benefits have been presumed to be admissible for a particular class of employees (BS-1 1 and above) and other employees who get training in the Academy have been divested of such right. This enigma could not be resolved from the written objections or the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. All the railway employees are to be treated alike. The admissibility of annual increments during the training period is a policy matter and all such employees are to be treated, at par, so that there is no discrimination which is abhorable and disapproved by our Constitution. In view of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the appeal to the extent of the relief of up-gradation and the appellants shall feel well advised to approach the competent forum for remedy whereas partly allow these appeals with the direction to the respondent-department to make admissib le the annual increments for the appellants for the period they remained in Academy for training course T-4, as was done in the letter of G.M. (Power) Pakistan Railways dated 24.04.1987.
The needful be done within a period of 3 months."
3. Following the above dicta, the learned FST has in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment granted the following identical relief to the respondents: "6. Therefore these appeals of identical nature are disposed of with the direction to the respondents "to make admissible the annual increments" to the appellants for the period they remained in Academy for training."
4. A perusal of the judgment dated 01.03.2016 shows that it is based upon a letter dated 20.04.1987 issued by the General Manager (Personnel), Pakistan Railways and addressed to all Divisional Superintendents in the organization. From that letter , the learned FST has deduced that "the period between completion of training and assumption of duty may be treated as on duty for grant of annual increments." This means that the service period falling after completion of training is to be treated as on duty period. However , rathe r paradoxicaly the relief that has been granted by the said judgment dated.
01.03.2016 and followed by the impugned judgment is a direction to the appellant department to grant annual increments to the respondents "for the period they remained in Academy for training course T-4." A cursory reference to the contents of the letter dated 20.4.1987 by the General Manager (Personnel), Pakistan Railways straightaway shows that the relief granted by the judgment dated 01.3.2016 and the impugned judgment has gone far beyond the terms of the said letter which serves as the foundation of the relief granted. For the sake of certainty it is useful to reproduce the letter dated 20.04.1987.
"PAKIST AN RAIL WAYS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE LAHORE No.561-E/137-1 1 (E.Policy) dated: 20.04.1987 All Divisional Superintendents, Including DS/W Pakistan Railways W.M/Signal Shops, Lahore G.M. (P) RM, Lahore The A.G M/A & B Lahore Sub: REGULARIZA TION OF PERIOD BETWEEN COMPLETION OF TRAINING AND ASSUMPTION OF DUTY .
References have been received from the Divisions regarding regularization of intervening period between completion of training and assumption of duty of Probationary Sub-engineers Gr .I on the Pakistan Railways.
The matter has been carefully examined in this office. It has been noted that Sub-Engineers Gr.I on the railways are recruited as probationary Sub-Engineers against permanent vacancies in accordance with fixed quota reserved for them. Therefore all probationary Sub-engineers recruited in accordance with prescribed rules and regulations and against permanent vacancies (except on ad-hoc/work charged) will have to be treated as railway servants from the day they join Services with full benefits in regard to continuity of services, grant of annual increments etc. All such cases may be dealt with in the manner indicated above.
This also disposed of D.S/Lahore's letter No.735- E/1/76 (P-I) dated, 31.12.1-981. for General Manager , (Personnel)
5. It is apparent from the contents of the above letter that the period intervening between completion of training and assumption of duty by probationary Sub-Engineers Grade-I is regularized as service with full benefits including annual increments.
6. Another letter dated 23.07.1987 also repeats the same administrative principle for grant of annual increments.
However , it is straightway clear that the learned FST has misread the letter dated 20.04.1987 by wrongly considering that it allows annual increme nts for the training period for T-4 course whereas the letter is referring to the post training service period.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to distinguish the case of probationary Sub-Engineers Gr.I to whom the letter dated 20.04.1987 applies from the respondents in the present cases who are Apprentices or Stipendiary students. He has referred to the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual clause 214 to explain the nature of employment of Apprentices: "214. Appointment of Apprentice/Students.---On successful completion of the period of apprenticeship/Student in such capacity and on such pay as may be considered suitable for him, but no guarantee or promise of employment on completion of apprenticeship/studentship is given or implied by the Railway Administration."
Paragraph (G) of clause 214 clarifies the ineligibility of Apprentices to increment in their stipends: "(G) There will be no special rates of stipend for Apprentices/ Stipendiary students. Apprentices and stipendiary students will be allowed the minimum of the National Scales of pay of the post to which they would be appointed on successful completion of their apprenticeship/stipendiary studentship. The period of apprenticeship/stipendiary studentship will not count for increment in the National Scales."
8. Learned counsel has explained probationary Sub-Engineers Gr.I are differen tly placed from Apprentices in respect of their service rights. However , for present purposes, we need not go into the distinction drawn for the simple reason that according to the letter dated 20.04.1987 even probationary Sub-Engineers have not been granted the benefit which has been extended to the respondents by the impugned judgment.
9. In order to understand why apprentices/stipendiary students do not enjoy the said increment is because during their stage of employment they fall under Clause 214 of the Personnel Manual, Pakistan Railways which states that no guarantee or promise of employment on completion of apprenticeship/ studentship is given or implied to be given by the Railways Administration. Furthermore, clause (G) of the 561-E/129 (E. Policy) dated 25.7.1972 stipulated in the Personnel Manual's Clause 214 makes it clear that "the period of apprenticeship/stipendiary studentship will not count for increment in the National Scales." Therefore, durin g the training period for the T-4 course, the Apprentices/stipendiary students do not qualify as regular employees of the Pakistan Railways and are therefore not entitled to service benefits which include annual increments that are undoubtedly an incident of regular employment.
10. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the impugned judgment of the learned FST misread the record and therefore arrived at the wrong conclusion with respect 'to the grant of service rights of annual increments to the respondents. This happened due to an incorrect interpretation and appreciation of the administrative directions given in the letter dated 20.04.1987. In any event, it is clear from the Personnel Manual that during their period of apprenticeship the respondents were not eligible to, be in regular employment of the Pakistan Railways under Clause 214 thereof which means that service benefits corresponding to such employment, namely , inter aria, annual increment was not available to them as clarified in sub-clause (G) of Clause 214 of the Personnel Manual.
11. As a result, we find that the impugned judgment suffers from a serious .error in interpreting the relevant service regulations and is therefore liable to be set aside. Accordingly , these appeals are allowed. 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.