QAZI HAMID-UD-DIN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal has been filed by Tariq Shah against the Secretary, Education, N.-W.F.P. And others for non-regularization of his service and denying the benefits of 6 advance increments as well as graded pay in BPS-15 to the appellant.
2. The facts averred in the memo of appeal are that the appellant was inducted in service as S.E.T.
(Agriculture) in BPS-15 on fixed pay on 23-1-1988 vide Annexure A on the file. The appellant contends that he is still kept on fixed pay despite the fact that he has been working against the post for the last 5 years. The appellant tried his best to receive training for the purpose of awarding graded/running pay and in this connection he made a departmental appeal on 24-10-1992 (Annexure `C') but no reply has been received by the appellant. Hence the present appeal has been filed for the redress of his grievance on the grounds that the appellant has been performing his duty for the last five years but has not been awarded graded pay so far, that no adverse entry has been made in his A.C.R. That the appellant is highly qualified and also possessed M.Sc. (Agri.) degree, that there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant was asked for training by the respondents and which has been refused by the appellant, that since the appellant possessed M.Sc. (Agri.) degree, therefore he is also entitled to receive his monthly salary in graded/running pay in BPS-16, that the appellant has also started training for getting diploma in Agri. Technical from the G.T.T.C. Gulbahar, Peshawar, that the appellant is entitled for 6 advance increments in the light of the judgment dated 27-4-1976 in Appeal No. 264/74. Shahzad Khan v. Education Department, N.-W.F.P., that there are separate rules for Agriculture Teachers, that the facilities which are admissible to graded S.E.T. (Agri.) may also be provided to the appellant and that since M.Sc. (Agri.) is a professional degree, therefore, there is no need of B.Ed.
3. The respondents in their reply have raised the preliminary objections to the effect that the appeal is not competent, that the appellant has no cause of action and that the appellant has no locus standi to bring the present appeal in absence of required qualification. On factual side it has been stated that the department was not bound to get the appellant trained due to limited sources, and that the appellant has been informed about his departmental appeal vide Annexure `A', annexed to the reply.
4. It has been further stated that per condition given in the appointment order, the appellant is not entitled to graded pay in BPS-15/16 in absence of professional qualification for the post. The judgment under reference does not apply in the case of the appellant and that M.Sc. (Agri.) is not a professional degree.
Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The appellant has made three prayers in his appeal. The first prayer is that his services shall be regularised in the Education Department as Vocational Subject Teacher and he should be allowed graded pay from the date of induction in service. As against this the learned counsel for the respondents department has contended that the 1983 Rules were framed and notified on 28-12- 1983 and the minimum qualification for induction as V.S.T, is B.Sc. Agriculture from a recognised University plus B.Ed. Or B.Sc. Agriculture from a recognised University plus Vocational Teacher Training Diploma in Agriculture from Government Agro-Tech. Teacher Training Centre. As the appellant does not possess these qualifications, therefore, his services could not be regularised according to 1983 Rules. The Tribunal agrees with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and holds that since the appellant lacks the requisite qualification his services cannot be permanently regularised but since the appellant has been working against the post, therefore, he would be entitled to the pay of the post against which he has been working alongwith increments which should be allowed to him from the date of induction in service. Therefore the Tribunal allows this relief to the appellant till such time he is allowed to continue work against the post.
6.The appellant's second prayer is that he should be allowed 6 advance increments which were admissible according to Pay Revision Rules, 1965 and has been mentioned in the judgment dated 27-4-1976 of Shahzad Khan v. Education Department in Appeal No. 264/74. The Tribunal while parting with the case, had advised the respondent Government that Service Rules about Agriculture Teachers may be framed within reasonable time by the authorities concerned and probably it was sequel to these observations of the Tribunal that 1989 Rules-were framed in which the minimum qualifications for the Vocational Subject Teacher have been laid down dad any one fulfilled these qualifications and were inducted would be entitled to 6 advance increments. In absence of these qualifications 6 advance increments could not be claimed by the appellant. So under the circumstances and in the light of the rules notified on 28-12-1983 this relief cannot be allowed to the appellant.
7. The third relief of the appellant, which he sought from this Tribunal is promotion to BPS-16. Since the 1983 Rules blocked his entry into service on regular basis for lack of requisite qualifications, therefore, the relief of promotion to BPS-16 cannot be considered and hence this promotion to the appellant is refused by the Tribunal. But if the post has been elevated to BPS-16 then the appellant would be entitled to graded pay in Scale 16. The appeal is partially accepted in the above terms.
Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record.