' ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER). -The appellant, who held the qualification of A. M. I. E. Was selected as Assistant Works Manager (under Training Scheme of POF) vide POF letter, dated 20th July, 1971. He did two years' training and was appointed AWM, w,e,f, 30th July, 1973.
2. Based on the Ministry of Finance 0. M., dated 30th June, 1975, the appellant preferred his claim for five premature increments on the ground that by holding the post of the AWM, which was tenable by a graduate engineer, his qualification of AMIE was equated with that of a graduate engineer and as such he was entitled to the increments he was claiming.
3. His departmental appeal having been rejected vide Chief Administrative Officer's letter, dated 28th November, 1981 he came up in appeal before the Tribunal on 31st December, 1981.
4. We heard the learned counsel from both sides. It appeared pertinent to reproduce Finance Division 0. M., dated 30th June, 1975.
It reads : "OFFICE MEMORANDUM"
' Subject : Grant of five premature increments in NPS-17 to certain categories of employees.
' The President has been pleased to decide that in the case of the incumbents of the following categories of posts, who since before 1st July, 1975 might be drawing pay in the National Pay Scale No, 17 (Rs, 500-501,000/50-1,250) their pay in that scale will w,e,f, 1st July, 1975 be enhanced by five premature increments subject to the condition that the pay so enhanced shall in no case exceed the maximum of the above scale :
(i) The NPS-17 posts of Engineers, the prescribed minimum qualification for which is graduation in any branch of Engineering.
(ii) The NPS-17 posts for which the basic minimum qualification is a Master's degrec in any of the physical/natural Sciences.
(iii) NPS-17 posts of Lecturers in Colleges.
2. Those who are appointed to the above posts on or after 1st July, 1975 will be allowed initial pay at the stage of Rs, 750 in NPS-17 except in those in which initial pay at higher than that stage be admissible under any rules or orders of the competent authority."
5. A plain reading of the above-quoted 0. M. Leaves no doubt in our mind that the post of AWM, which the appellant was holding had AMIE as the prescribed minimum qualification and that was why he was appointed as such. Clearly, therefore, the prescribed minimum qualification of the' said post was not graduation in any branch of the Engineering and had it been so, then alone the appellant could have had any legitimate claim to five premature increments but in that case the appellant would not have been appointed to the post unless he was also a graduate engineer and fulfilled the prescribed minimum qualification.
6. Having given this case our due consideration, we are quite clear that the appellant's claim is misconceived. As such we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
7. Parties be informed.