1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.---These two appeals involve similar questions. They are, therefore, being disposed of together.
2. The leave grant order in Civil Appeal No.233 of 1988 is as under:- `This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Pakistan Railways and is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. `Briefly the facts are that Muhammad Yousaf respondent joined the petitioner in the Personnel Branch in 1959. Thereafter in 1973 he was promoted as UDC. His posting fell in the category of `Class III Posts'. In 1975 he improved his qualifications by passing B.A. Examination in second division. It may be pointed out that the petitioner Pakistan Railways had introduced an Incentive Scheme in 1961 (subsequently reproduced as Railways Board's letter dated 22nd January 1966 at pp. 21 to 27 of the paper book) for Railway Officers and subordinates for the grant of advance increments to the persons who improve their qualifications during service. Since he had improved his qualifications as aforementioned Muhammad Yousaf respondent applied for the grant of four advance increments under para. (D) `Class III Staff' of the Railway Board's letter dated 22nd January 1966. His case was that under para. (D) item (vii) of the Scheme he as an employee was working in the Personnel Branch as Class III Staff, and according to the Scheme he was entitled to four advance increments after he had improved his qualification.
3. The Department did not give him any reply until eventually his representation was rejected on 3rd September 1984. However, his appeal before the Tribunal succeeded and the petitioner was directed to give four advance increments under the aforesaid Incentive Scheme to Muhammad Yousaf respondent. `Learned counsel for the petitioner before us argued that the Incentive Scheme of 1961 was subsequently reintroduced and clarified in 1966 and that under para.332 of the Scheme the phrase "acquisition of qualifications prescribed for Class II Officers" occurring in para. (D) of the Incentive Scheme implied that if a Class III employee acquired the same qualifications which entitled a Class II Officer for a benefit under the said Scheme he would get the benefits as indicated in the aforementioned para. iD) thereof provided the qualifications were acquired after entering in Class III service. According to the learned counsel Muhammad Yousaf respondent would have only been considered to improve his qualifications if he had acquired degree of LL.B. The submission is that under para. (C) `Class II Officers' working in the Personnel Branch, a person who acquired a degree of LL.B. Was entitled to two advance increments, and under para.
(D) `Class III Staff if a person had acquired the same qualification i.e. Degree - of LL.B. then he was entitled to four advance increments. It was argued by the learned counsel that the acquisition on the part of Muhammad Yousaf respondent of BA. Degree even in second division was not at all relevant to the dispute and it had resulted into miscarriage of justice. It was next submitted that even otherwise his appeal before the Tribunal involved the question of limitation and it was clearly time-barred, therefore, it should have been dismissed on that ground.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we grant leave in this case inter alia to consider as to what is the correct interpretation of para. (C) `ctlass II Officers' and para. (D) `Class III Staff occurring in the Incentive Scheme as re-introduced by Railway Board's letter dated 22nd January, 1966.'
5. The learned counsel reiterated the same point as was noted in the leave grant order. He has relied on Para. 332 in Railway Board's letter No. Admn.216/P.I, dated 21-1-1971 which reads as follows:-- "332. The phrase "acquisition of qualifications prescribed for Class II Officers" occurring in para. (D) of the Incentive Scheme, as contained in Appendix II, implies that if a Class III employee acquires the same qualifications which entitle a Class II Officer for a benefit under the said scheme, he will get the benefits as indicated in the aforementioned para. (D) thereof provided the qualifications are acquired after entering in Class III Service."
6. The essential parts of paras. (C) and (D) of the Scheme are also reproduced below:-- (C)CLASS II OFFICERS (i)Acquisition of the minimum qualifications necessary for recruitment to Class I Service in the :-- (a)Motive (Powers and Mechanical Engineering Department)
7. (b)Electrical Engineering Department.
(c) Civil Engineering Department. Two advance increments or when no increment is due Rs.1,000 in lumpsum.
(d) Stores Department.
(e) Signal Engineering Department.
8. Note.--The benefits shall be admissible if the qualifications are acquired after promotion to Class II Service (ii)Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial Department--- --- ---- (iii)Medical Department--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --_ -_- --- --- --- --- --- --- (iv)Personnel Branch. Acquisition of a Two advance increments or degree of LL.B. When no increment is due ,Rs.1,000 in lumpsum.
9. Note:-The benefit shall be admissible if the qualifications are acquired' after promotion to Class II Service.
10. (D)CLASS III STAFF All Departments Acquisition of qualifications prescribed for Class II Officers in (i)Motive (Powers) and Mech. Engineering Departments.
11. (ii)Electrical Engineering Department.
(iii) Stores Department. Four advance increments Or when no increment is due Rs.1,000 in lump sum. They should also be given special consideration for Selection to Class 1 1 Posts.
(iv) Signal Engineering Department.
(v) Civil Engineering Department.
(vi) Transportation (T raffic) and Commercial Department.
(vii) Personnel Branch.
(viii) Medical Department.
12. Note: 1.--Benefits admissible to employees of Personnel Branch shall be given only to those who have acquired the additional qualifications during the course of their employment in the Personnel Branch and, only while they are serving in the Personnel Branch.
13. Note: 2: -The benefits shall be admissible if the qualifications are acquired after recruitment to class."
14. Learned counsel laid great stress on the distinction made under Para. (C) relating to Class 11 Officers between Personnel Branch and other Branches and accordingly, argued that the respondents being appellant's employees in Personnel Branch they were required to obtain LL.B.
15. Degree so as to qualify for the benefit under the Scheme. But he admitted that paragraph (D) actually applied to the respondents' case because it related to Class III Staff. Regarding the condition of "acquisition of qualification prescribed for Class 11 Officers" under Clause (D) he contended that it does not relate to the qualification prescribed for the induction in Class II but it related to the additional qualification contained in the scheme under Clause (C) relating to Class 11 Officers. In this behalf he referred to the condition for the employees in the Personnel Branch under Clause (C) and argued that LL.B. Degree was necessary.
16. We do not agree with him. The acquisition of qualifications for Class II Officers under Clause (D) is relatable to the word "prescribed." Obviously this word "prescribed" does not relate to the Incentive Scheme in which this word occurs but it (prescribed) relates to prescription elsewhere of qualifications. It has to be observed that the plural use for qualification is very significant. Under Clause (C) while dealing with the Personnel Branch only one qualification of LL.B. Degree is mentioned. The plural used in Clause (D) obvioulsy refers to all the qualifications which are necessary and which are prescribed for entry into Class II. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the said qualification is simple BA. And LL.B. Is not necessary. The Appeal No.233 of 1988 must fail on this ground alone. However, the other argument of the learned counsel also is of no avail to the appellant. The expression Personnel Branch under Clause (D) is clubbed with all other Branches and for every one of them the incentive benefit is the same. The Personnel Branch has not been dealt separately under Clause (D). To take the analogy of Cla--se (C), and to treat them separately will amount to violation of the text of the Scheme.
17. The argument of the learned counsel that the words acquisition of qualification prescribed for Class II Officers occurring in Clause (D) refer to the same qualifications which entitle Class II Officers for the benefit under the said Scheme, because it has been so clarified by the Department concerned in the aforequoted para.332, will also, not advance the case of the appellant. Obviously by a clarification which, as explained above, violates the text of the scheme itself, the appellant cannot take away the benefit to the respondent which had earlier been granted to him by the scheme. It is not the argument of the learned counsel that the scheme had been changed. If the scheme remained intact we regret the departmental interpretation being violative of the scheme itself, cannot be given any credence.
18. In the light of the foregoing discussion Civil Appeal No.233 of 1988 fails and is dismissed.
19. After the announcement of the decision in Appeal No.233/88, learned counsel argued Appeal No.488 of 1990 on the ground that although under Clause (D) the qualification, as held above, was BA. Degree and that too in second Division, the respondent in the said appeal, namely, Inderyas had passed BA. In third Division. He being a Christian was allowed special benefit of his position as a Christian, and also as, belonging to a backward class. In the relevant rule he could qualify under the said incentive scheme under a weightage allowed to them; namely, of even a BA. Degree in the third Division. Learned counsel for the appellant for some time tried to resist the claim of the respondent that he was a Christian and in a backward Class but could not advance the appellant's case in this behalf any further. Moreover leave in CA. 488/90 not having been given on the factual aspect of the class of. The respondent nor regarding the Division in the BA. Examination, we do not find any force in the other appeal either. The same also having failed is dismissed.
20. Both the appeals, as discussed above, having been found to be of no force are dismissed, but CA.
21. 233/88 with costs throughout.