IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J. - it is proposed to decide this writ petition as well as W.P.Nos.501/94 and 11731/94 by a single judgment as the point in issue is the same.
2. The petitioners 21 in number are the officials of the Lahore High Court. They have filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in denying them advance increments for acquiring higher educational qualification. It is added that the Act on of the respondent is discriminatory as in the similar circumstances the officials of the other departments have been allowed this benefit The relevant facts are that the petitioners joined as Junior Clerks between 4.10.1961 and 21.7.1973 after having done their Matric. They were promoted firstly as Senior Clerks and are at the moment serving as Assistants. The Government of Punjab while revising the pay scale and fringed the benefits of its employees proceeded to grant advance increments, vide Notification dated 27.7.1987, to the officials in Grade-I to 15 who possessed/acquired higher educational qualification. This was subject to the condition that they should have at least passed higher examination in 2nd division and it should be over and above minimum qualification prescribed in the relevant rules for recruitment to the post held by them. This Notification was replaced by another Notification dated 1.8.1991 and the condition of 2nd division and the words "post held by them" were deleted. The petitioners have during the service passed their F.A. And many of them also done graduation. After the issuance of Notification of 1991 they applied for grant of advance increment as per para No. 5 of the said Notification but their request was turned down and ultimately they were constrained to file the present writ petition. The same> was admitted to regular hearing and respondents have appeared through Syed Niaz Ali Shah, Addl.A.G. And contested the petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that 75% posts of assistants as per High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules were to be filled in "by promotion of Junior/Senior Clerks K.L.R. C.C. having 5 years experience and qualifying departmental written test and 25% by direct recruitment from Gradual t-s. It is added that since the petitioners were all appointed by promotion as A.-distant against departmental quota and their basic qualification at the time i*i entry in service was Matric, therefore, they were entitled to advance increments as per para No. 5 of the Notification of 1931. Similarly, 3 officials workup in the office of Advocate General, Punjab were denied benefit of this \'notification and they have filed Writ Petition Np. 501/94 while 3 O.T. Te=.. Ners, who have filed W.P.No. 11731/94 were initially granted benefit oi Notification dated 25.8.1983 but subsequently the increments were withdrawn and respondent No. 3 started making recovery of the amount already paid to them.
4. On the other hand, the learned Addl.A.G. Argued that the basic qualification for the post of Assistant is B.A. Under the relevant recruitment rules, therefore, the petitioners even though were promoted from Senior Clerks were not eligible for advance increments and in this context the Government has issued instructions to all Administrative Secretaries and others.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides and gone through the relevant recruitment rules as well as Notifications of the Finance Department. The advance increments for higher qualification under the Notification of 1987 was subject to condition that higher qualification prescribed in the relevant rules for recruitment to the posts held by them over and above the minimum qualification and they, should have passed the examination at least in 2nd division while para 5 of Notification of 1991, which is in vogue at the moment, reads as under:- "GRANT OF ADVANCE INCREMENTS TO OFFICIALS FOR POSSESSING ATTAINING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION: (1) From 1.7.1991 onwards, advance; increments shall be allowed without the condition of second division to the officials in BS-1 to BS-15 for possessing or acquiring higher educational qualification over and above prescribed qualifications in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to the extent given below for each higher qualification."
It is clear from the above provision that the Government wanted to extend the concession and for that reason the condition of passing the examination at least in 2nd division and the words post held by them' after the words 'relevant rules for recruitment' have been deleted. This is further confirmed by the fact that all the officials possessing or acquiring higher Qualification were held entitled to this benefit, but it seems that the respondents as usual did not accept this policy in letter and spirit and started putting their on. Interpretation to p;ii a No. 5. It may be added here that although the Government changed tin- date of application of this Notification from 1.7.1991 to 1.6.1991 but did not I t insider necessary to amend any other portion of the para No. 5. The High ('Court recommended the grant of these increments but the move was turned 6. Rule-17 of Rules of Business provided that the Law and Parliamentary Affairs be consulted by the other departments on legal questions arising out of any case and the mutter of interpretation of any law etc., and the word 'Law' would cover not only an Act and Ordinances but also Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations, Notifications and Circulars issued thereunder. This legal dispute having arisen respondent No. 3 was under statutory obligation to refer the matter to Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department and if they were still not satisfied the matter could have been agitated further as provided under this rule but they have no business or right to interpret themselves and then stick to it. This tendency is increasing in the department. This approach is illegal, irrational and cannot be countenanced because it does not help to solve the issues in accordance with law of the land but complicates the same.
7. Now coming to the case in hand, as for the petitioners are concerned, in accordance with the recruitment rules their basic qualifications would be as under: -
(a) Matric for appointment as Junior/Senior Clerks.
(b) 5 years experience and qualifying written test for promotion.
This way the qualification, in the relevant rules for the post of Assistant for in-service candidates would remain Matric, therefore, it would be Ustyurt and illogical to treat their prescribed qualifications as Graduate, which is only applicable to the direct recruitments.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is accepted. The result is that the petitioners, who have acquired/possessed higher qualifications are held entitled to benefit of the Notification dated 1.8.1991.
There is no order as to costs.