AYESHA A. MALIK. J. This Civil Petition is directed against judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore (Tribunal) whereby the appeal filed by Respondent was allowed.
2. Basic ground of challenge is the fact that the Respondent sought two advance increments on the basis of Office Memorandum No.F.1(9)- Imp,11/91-Pt.(G) dated 04,10:1992 (Office Memorandum of 1992) issued by the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulations Wing) on attaining higher education. He was denied these increments by the Petitioners, hence, he pursued the same by way of a departmental representation and then before the Tribunal which granted him the same vide the impugned judgment.
3. The relevant facts are that the Respondent was appointed as LDC (BS-5) on 14.12.1981. He was promoted as UDC (BS-7) on seniority-cum-fitness basis w.e.f. 26.11.1989. He was then promoted as Supervisor (BS-10) on 15.08.1994. He improved his qualification from matriculation to intermediate on 27.12.1994 and ultimately retired from service on 12.01.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. He filed an application for grant of two advance increments on 12.11.2021 which was rejected on 25.03.2022 by the Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Bahawalpur, against which, he filed a departmental appeal, which was also rejected on 27.06.2022.
The Respondent assailed the said orders before the Tribunal which were set aside by the Tribunal and he was allowed the two advance increments on the basis of the Office Memorandum of 1992.
For ease of reference, the Office Memorandum of 1992 is reproduced below: "The undersigned is directed to refer to this Division's O.M.F. No.1(12) Imp.11/91, dated 29.6.1991 in which Advance Increments have been allowed to the employees drawing Pay B 1-15 on possession/acquiring higher qualification over and above the prescribed qualification for the post in relevant recruitment Rules.
2. A question has been raised as to whether such employees B 1 to 15 would also be entitled to the advance increments on account of holding promotional posts for which there is no prescribed qualification in the recruitment Rules as no direct entry is made to these posts.
3. The case has been considered in this Division and it has now been decided that such employee holding the post on or after 16.92 for which there is no prescribed qualification in the recruitment Rules and is filed by 10 promotion basis, will be allowed advance increments on possessing/acquiring higher qualification than prescribed for the feeding post as per criteria laid down in Para 5(i) of the Finance Division O.M.F. No.1(12) Imp. 11/91, dated 29.06.1992 w.e.f. 01.06.1991 for the purpose of fixation of Pay. Pay so fixed will be admissible with effect from 1.10.1992."
The Office Memorandum of 1992 was clarified by the Finance Division vide second office memorandum dated 18.06.2011 that advance increments for acquiring or possessing higher qualification will be admissible to those employees who have been promoted to a higher post on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness but were not allowed to those who possess the same qualification prescribed for the said promotional post, meaning thereby, that pursuant to office memorandum dated 18.06.2011, advance increments were available to those who acquire the higher qualification as well as to those who possess higher qualification for the promotional post.
This office memorandum was further clarified vide a third office memorandum dated 21.07.2014 wherein it was stated that the advance increments will be admissible to those who have acquired higher technical as well as non-technical qualification prior to 01.12.2001 and finally further clarified vide a fourth office memorandum dated 26.08.2019 that civil servants who acquire or possess higher qualification of the promotional post based on seniority-cum-fitness were entitled to these advance increments.
4. So far as the Respondent is concerned, he was appointed as LDC on the basis of his matriculation. He was then promoted as UDC in 1989 based on seniority-cum-fitness principle having the requisite two years service as an LDC whereas qualification for the purposes of direct recruitment for the post of UDC was intermediate. The Respondent did not have this qualification at the time when he was promoted and admittedly obtained this qualification on 27.12.1994, at which point, he had been promoted to the post of Supervisor for which the required qualification was three years' service as UDC. It may be noted that the post of Supervisor was filled by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. So, the Respondent's claim was that he was entitled to the advance increments for getting the higher education of intermediate (F.A.) for the post of UDC and Supervisor. However, a dispute arose when the Respondent sought the advance increments on the basis of the Office Memorandum of 1992 which was declined on the ground that the prescribed qualification for the post of UDC was intermediate, therefore, the Respondent was not eligible for the advance increments.
5. Counsel for the Petitioners argued that in order to become eligible for the advance increments, the Respondent had to obtain a higher qualification over and above what was required for the post and since the qualification for the post of UDC was intermediate, hence, on acquiring this qualification he did not possess a higher qualification for the said post. He also raised the objection that the Respondent filed the application for advance increments on 12.11.2021 after more than 18 years of his retirement in 2023, hence, he stales that claim of the Respondent was also barred by time.
6. We have heard the counsel at length, however, we are not inclined to interfering with the impugned judgment. The dispute revolves around the applicability of the Office Memorandum of 1992 which grants advance increments on higher qualification to those employees who possess or acquire higher qualification over and above that prescribed qualification for the post. By way of the subsequent clarifications issued in 2011 and 2019, the Finance Division clarified that those employees who were promoted on seniority-cum-fitness basis to a higher post who did not necessarily possess the higher qualification of that post but acquired it during this time were entitled to advance increments. There is no dispute to the fact that the Respondent's qualification was that of matriculation and he acquired his intermediate on 27.12.1994 while he was working with the Petitioners. He was promoted on seniority-cum--fitness basis in 1989 first to the post of UDC and then in 1994 to the post of Supervisor. During this time, he acquired the educational qualification of intermediate (F.A.) which is the prescribed qualification for the post of UDC as per SRO.657(I)/82 issued in pursuance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 (Rules) for the purposes of direct recruitment, hence, his case squarely falls within the ambit of the Office Memorandum of 1992 read with clarifications of 2011 and 2019. Counsel for the Petitioners also raised the issue of the claim being barred by time but he was not able to point out any specific provision on the basis of which he urges the point that the Respondent's claim is barred by time. We are of the opinion that there is no issue with respect to the claim being barred by time as it is continuing claim of the Respondent, which when placed before the competent authority, being the Commissioner Inland Revenue on 09.01.2022, was recommended for consideration as per the Rules after due verification of his F.A. degree from the concerned Board. The reason given in letter dated 09.01.2022 is that he acquired the higher qualification required for the post to which he was promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.
Notwithstanding the recommendation, ultimately on 02.03.2022 he was declined the advance increments vide orders dated 25.03.2022 and 27.06.2022. Given that the Respondent's case clearly falls within the ambit of the Office Memorandum of 1992 read with clarifications of 2011 and 2019, there appears to be no justifiable reason to deny the Respondent grant of advance increments.
7. Counsel for the Petitioners also relied on Senior General Manager; Pakistan Railways v.
Muhammad Pervaz (2024 SCMR 581), however, we note that this judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts because in the cited case, the petitioner had an LL.B. degree for which he sought the advance increments but was denied the same as the two advance increments on the basis of higher education were given to that petitioner when he acquired his master's degree and, therefore, he could not claim the same advance increment after having acquired the LL.B. degree as he could not be given the benefit of two advance increments on attaining the master's degree and the LL.B. degree. Therefore, we find that the facts of the cited case are totally distinguishable and not relevant to the case in hand.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this Petition, which is dismissed and leave refused.