MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J.- Muhammad Tariq, the petitioner, who was appointed as Extra Assistant Director in BPS-16 in in respondent/ department i.e., Zari Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) on 02.05.1990, was promoted in the year 2013 to the post of Deputy Director/Assistant Vice President in BPS-18 and his promotion was due oh 31st of December, 2021 against the post of Joint DirectorNice Presideht (BPS-19), however, he was retired from service on 01.04.2022 in BPS-18. He has filed the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with contention that at the time of his appointment, he was possessing the decree of B.A 2nd Division with LL.B 2nd Division and that the LL.B degree was an additional qualification for the post against which he was appointed, as such, he was entitled for grant of five advance increments, on the ground that as per the Recruitment Policy, LL.B is an additional qualification and anyone who possesses additional qualification, at the time of his appointment, was entitled for five advance increments, which were granted to his other colleagues namely Muhammad Saleh, Israr-ud-Din, Hanifullah and Faqir Muhammad. He also referred that Abdul Wadood and Imran-udDin have also been given advance increments but the petitioner has not been treated like his other colleagues. He also made a reference to C.R No.555 of 1999 decided by this Court on 21.04.2000, whereby Abdul Wadood was granted five advance increments by this civil Court and civil revision against the judgment of the civil court was dismissed by this Court.
2. Respondents were directed for submission of their para wise comments, wherein they have refuted the contents of the petition and added that the case of the petitioner is different from the one decided earlier in respect of grant of five advance increments in accordance with the Recruitment Policy.
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contended that LL.B is an additional quMification and any employee possessing additional qualification, was entitled for five advance increments as per the recruitment policy and earlier to the instant matter, certain other employees were granted this relief but the petitioner has been denied the same, which is discriminatory, illegal, unjust and against the law.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondents contended that LL.B degree itself is not an additional qualification for the post against which the petitioner was appointed rather the recruitment policy is very much clear, which could not be interpreted other than the specific provisions mentioned therein. He therefore requested for dismissal of the instant petition.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The amended recruitment policy (191.10.1989) has been annexed by the respondents with their comments, which reflects the basic qualification for different posts, which is reproduced as under: QUALIFICATION POST
1. Post Graduates from abroad, 1st Div. Deputy Director in Head Office
2. B. Sc Agri. Engineering, 1st Div. Assistant Director in head Office
3. Other Post Graduates in H.O. Assistant Director in Head Office, if clear vacancy is available, otherwise grade 16 with 5 increments.
4. Post Graduates in Agriculture MCO (Grade 16 with 5 increments
5. Other Post Graduates in the field Officers (Gr-16 with 5 increments)
6. B. Sc (Agri) at least second Division MCO (Grade-16)
7. MA. LLB (at least Second Division) Officer (Gr-16 with 5 increments)
8. BA. LLB (at least Second Division) or MA. LLB (Third Division) Officer Grade-16
9. BA. LLB (Third Division) Sr. Assistant The petitioner was appointed officer Grade 16 (available at serial No. 8) whose basic qualification in the year 1989 was BA. LL.B whereas, the basic qualification for the post of officer Grade 16 with 5 increments is at serial No. 7 whose basic qualification is M.A LL.B (at least second division). The petitioner was inducted in service on 02.05.1990 and at that time the policy amended on 19.10.1989 was in field.
07. The plea for 5 increments as alleged by the petitioner was based on three grounds firstly, the recruitment policy but the one which was in vogue at the time of appointment of the petitioner is repelling his contention and he could not produce any contrary to that in support of his assertion.
Secondly, that his colleagues filed a suit and the same was decreed in their favour against which the civil revision of respondents' bank i.e., C.R No.555 of 1999 titled "Chairman Agricultural Development Bank etc. Vs. Abdul Wadood Extra Assistant Director" was dismissed on 21.04.2000.
The referred to above judgment is a consolidated decision rendered by this Court in C.R No,5555 and 556 of 1999, where both the respondents Abdul Wadood and Faqir Muhammad filed their suits before the civil Court for declaration that they were entitled for awarding five advance increments alongwith the allowances on the basis of additional qualification from the date of their respective recruitment till their retirement. Para No.6 of the referred to above judgment is of worth perusal, which is reproduced as under: "This is an undisputed fact that Abdul Wadood and Faqir Muhammad,' plaintiffs/ respondents were possessing the additional qualification of L.L.B before they joined the Bank service and thereafter the former obtained M.A Pashto while the latter obtained M.A Islamiyat and Political Science during the course of their service. This is also not denied that under Bank Recruitment Policy, the post-graduate of Agriculture and other post graduates, if appointed in field, were granted five advance increments, for the additional Qualifications. This has also been conceded that some of the officials of the Bank namely Muhammad Salehn, Israr-ur-Rahman and Hanif Ullah who had obtained master's degree in the subjects other than the subjects mentioned in the Bank Recruitment Policy, were allowed five advance increments."
(emphasis provided)
The plaintiffs of the civil suits were not granted 5 increments on the sole basis for having the degree of LL.B rather they did their master degrees in Pashto, Islamiyat and Political Science respectively. More-so, the plaintiff Faqir Muhammad was inducted in service on 1986 and Faqir Muhammad was in 1990 their case was based that Abdul Wadood has additional qualification of M.A Pashto at the time of his recruitment while Faqir Muhammad did his M.A Islamiyat & M.A.
Political Science after his recruitment and they applied for five increments and the same was granted to thein as reflected in the judgement as reproduced above. It is significant to mention that earlier to the amended policy the services of the employees of Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan (A.D.B.P) were governed under A.D.B.P Staff Service Regulations, 1961, where the basic qualification for recruitment for the post of officers was Bachelor's degree. Thus, the reliance of the petitioner on the judgement referred to above for grant of five increments is misconceived.
08. The case of the petitioner was neither based on any law, rules, or regulation but he mainly relied on the judgement of this Court which does not favour him. Moreover, the judgement made law follows the law unless the law itself was challenged and was declared inconsistent to the Constitution. Though the policy of the Bank is beneficial but it could not be interpreted contrary to its mandate. The minimum qualification for the post of grade 16 was B.A LL.B for which the policy does not provide five increments which were allowed only to those employees whose qualification at the time of recruitment were M.A. LL.B. Had the qualification of the petitioner been M.A LL.B, at the time of his recruitment, he would have been allowed five increments. Reliance may be placed on the cases of "Government of Punjab and Another Vs. Muhammad Amin (1981 SCMR 975), "Muhammad Rafique Malik Vs. Punjab Service Tribunals, Lahore and others" (1995 SCMR 819) & "Punjab Employees' Social Security Vs.Khadim Hussain" (1997 PLC(CS) 290). The claim of the petitioner for advance increments was having LL. B as additional qualification but the petitioner could not substantiate his contention through policy, rules or regulations rather his plea is repelling to the policy. It is settled law that when a thing is required to be done it must be done in that matter and not otherwise as held in the cases of "Qamar Javed vs. Gul Mai:" (2005 MLD 1329), "Syed Bashir Hussain vs. Abdul Waheed" (2013 MLD 1675), "SNGPL VS. OGRA" (PLD 2013 Lahore 289), "Cantonment Board Clifton vs. Sultan Ahmad Siddique" (2016 CLC 919), "Muhammad Akram Javid vs. Bashir Ahmad Soauk" (2016 CLC 1751), "Hassan Bakhsh vs. Sultan" (2016 MLD 1157).
"Ajmir Shah, Ex-Sepov vs. the Inspector General, Frontier Corps Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another" (2020 SCMR 2129)."Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi" (PLD 2018 SC 189), "Shahida Bibi v. Habib Bank Limited" (PLD 2016 SC 995) and Human Rights Cases Nos.4668 of 2006 and others (PLD 2010 SC 759)." Thus, the petitioner could not point out any discrimination on the part of the respondents or any illegality in inaction of the respondents for not granting five advance increments. Therefore, for the afore-said discussion, this petition being without substance is hereby dismissed. 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.