' SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRI (MEMBER).--These are seven identical appeals involving a common question and we propose to dispose them of through this consolidated order.
2. All the appellants arc Assistant Divisional Engineers holding B-17 posts in the T & T Department. As to their academic qualifications, they are Associate Members of Institute of Engineers. In 1975 it was decided by the President of Pakistan that the holders of B-17 posts or Engineers, the prescribed minimum qualification for which is graduation in any branch of engineering, would be allowed five advance increments with effect from 1-7-1975. The relevant Office Memorandum dated 30-6-1975, on the subject, is reproduced below for convenience of reference: "Sub: 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 1-7-1975 might be drawing pay in the National Pay Scale No,17 (Rs,500-50-1,000/50-1,250), their pay in that scale will w,e,f, 1-7-1975, 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 Engineers;
(ii) The NPS-17 posts for which the basic minimum qualification is a Master's degree in any of the physical/natural Sciences;
(iii) The NPS-17 posts of Lecturers in Colleges.
' In pursuance of the above decision, the engineers in the T & T Department drawing pay in B-17 who held B.Sc. Degree in Engineering were allowed the benefit of five advance increments. The appellants who were Associate Members of Institute of Engineers (hereinafter referred to as the AMIE), requested for similar benefit. They too were allowed but later it was withdrawn when the Ministry of Finance ruled that they were ineligible for the benefit for the reason that AMIE qualification is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Engg.) Degree. The representation against this decision having failed, the appellants have come up in appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The case of the appellants is that AMIE is equivalent to B.Sc. Degree. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that this equivalence has been accepted by the governmental authorities as well as all the relevant institutions. In support of that he drew our attention to the following:-
(a) The holders of AMIE diploma are eligible like the B.Sc. Engineers for appearing in the Central Engineering Service Examination conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission.
(b) Under the Central Engineering Service Class-I Recruitment Rules, 1951, Section A and B of AMIE has been treated as equivalent to B.Sc. (Engg.) for the purpose of recruitment to Class-I posts.
(c) The Pakistan Engineering Council recognized the engineering qualification as granted by the AMIE (Pak) in the Pakistan Engineering Council Ordinance, 1975.
(d) The Ministry of Finance (Regulation Wing), Government of Pakistan, vide its letter No,F.3(4)/75- Pt.-D2 19/7-R1 dated 29-3-1976 informed the A.G.P.R., Islamabad, that on a reference in connection with the grant of five premature increments, the Education Division had confirmed that "the AMIE
(Pak) is equivalent to B.E/B.Sc. Engg. For the purpose of professional services in Engineering Department/Organization."
(e) In the course of the pendency of the appeals two of the appellants, namely Mahmood and Naseem Ahmed Vohra, who are holding AMIE qualification, were allowed the benefit of five premature increments but without arrears.
4. The learned counsel submitted that on these facts the respondents were entirely wrong and not justified in refusing the grant Sf advance increments to those B-17 Officers who had AMIE as their qualification. He also relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in Appeals Nos.108(L) of 1984 and 77(R) of 1986 and the Supreme Court of Pakistan's decision in the case of the Government of the Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin reported as 1981 SCMR 675.
5. The respondents have resisted the appeal. The learned counsel appearing on their behalf submitted that the qualification of AMIE is not equivalent to the B.Sc. (Engg.) Degree. He pointed out 1.4at B.Sc. (Engg.) was a five years' course whereas for taking AMIE Examination only a three years' study course is required. As regards the recognition by the Pakistan Engineering Council, it was submitted that the Council had later withdrawn its recognition granted earlier. The learned counsel, therefore, strongly urged that the appellants were clearly not entitled to the grant of premature increments. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No,3(R) of 1982 which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No,101/1985.
6. We have carefully considered the issue in dispute and the arguments advanced from both sides.
A plain reading of the Office Memorandum dated the 30th of June, 1975, would show that the entitlement to the benefit of five premature increments has been attached to B-17 posts the prescribed minimum qualification for which is graduation. So, the incumbents of such posts would be entitled to the benefit of premature increments. That the appellants held B-17 posts is not in dispute. The question that remains to be determined is: what were the prescribed minimum qualifications for the posts that they held? We find that for the competitive examination for recruitment to these posts the qualifications prescribed by the Federal Public Service Commission are as follows:- ' A candidate must have obtained a Degree or equivalent qualification in lectrical/Communication/Civil/Mechanical/Electronic Engineering from one of the Universities/Institutions mentioned in Appendix I."
This means that candidates who hold either B.Sc. Degree or equivalent qualification from a University or Institution mentioned in Appendix-I are eligible to appear in the examination and if successful, they can be appointed to the said posts. In Appendix-I, among the institutions mentioned, AMIE is one of them. It follows, therefore, that the prescribed minimum qualification for the posts of Assistant Divisional Engineer (B-17) is either B.Sc. Degree or AMIE. We also find that the Ministry of Education and the Pakistan Engineering Council recognized AMIE qualification as equivalent to B.Sc. (Engg.) Degree. The learned counsel for the respondents had taken the plea that the Pakistan Engineering Council had later withdrawn its recognition but that was with effect from the 24th of May, 1986. This withdrawal of recognition, however, cannot adversely affect the entitlement of the appellants because when the impugned order refusing them the benefit of increments was passed, the recognition by the Pakistan Engineering Council held the field. Also, by allowing the claim of the two of the appellants Mahmood and Naseem Ahmed Vohra, the respondents have themselves accepted AMIE as the minimum qualification for the posts held by the said two appellants. The learned counsel for the respondents with a view to distinguishing the cases of Mahmood and Naseem Ahmed Vohra from that of the others, submitted that the former were direct recruits whereas the rest of the appellants were promotes from B-16. We do not see any merit in this plea because the Office Memorandum dated 30-6.1975 makes no such distinction. It was not laid down that the benefit of premature increments would be restricted to direct recruits alone. What was provided. Therein was only two conditions: B-17 posts and minimum prescribed qualification. Since the appellants satisfied both these conditions, they were in our view entitled to premature increments. It is relevant to mention that this very issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Government of Punjab and another v.
Muhammad Amin reported as 1981 SCMR 675. The Government of Punjab had also sanctioned five advance increments to incumbents of posts "in NPS-17 posts of Engineers, the prescribed minimum qualification for which is graduation in any branch of Engineering". The Punjab Service Tribunal had held that the appellant before them who was AMIE was entitled to premature increments for the reason that AMIE and the B.Sc. Degree were equivalent. The Government's view point before the Tribunal as well as before the Supreme Court was that the benefit of five advance increments was available only to graduate Engineers and not to those who held AMIE Degree which was in fact a Diploma. In its judgment the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal observing that "the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity so far as the conclusion is concerned."
7. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the appellants in the cases before us were entitled to five premature increments. Accepting the appeals, we direct that M/s. A.D.Naseem, Ejaz Mohsin. Abdur Rashid, Mushtaq Ahmad and Mahmud Akhtar be allowed five premature increments with effect from 1-7-1975 and their pays refixed accordingly. The remaining two appellants, namely, Mahmood and Naseem Ahmad Vohra, who have since been allowed the benefit from a subsequent date, should be sanctioned the premature increments with effect from the dates they joined B-17 posts or 1-7-1975 whichever is later. They will be given the consequential back benefits.
8. No order as to costs.
9. Parties to be informed accordingly.