' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Briefly, the facts of all the three appeals are that M/s. Muhammad Shahid Khan, Zia-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Farooq, in pursuance of an advertisement dated 3-6-1987, applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (Technical).
They were appointed in 1988 as TG Teachers (Tech.) on fixed pay of Pay Scale No, 15 and they continued to draw this pay to 1991 when they made representations to the department that some of their colleagues having same qualifications were appointed on regular basis and that they may also be given regular Scale of Pay No,15. Their representations were rejected on the grounds that untrained Graduate Teachers (Tech.) appointed on fixed pay are not entitled to a regular pay scale without obtaining the requisite Training Certificate.
2. We have heard Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants. It is argued that the respondents who were appointed earlier with the same qualifications were given BPS-15 and their services were regularised. Therefore, the appellants having same qualifications are also entitled to get the same benefits as given to others.
3. Mr. Hafiz S.A. Rehrnan learned Standing Counsel for the respondent department has resisted this contention and stated that the respondents who were appointed in 1975 prior to the appointments of the appellants on the terms and conditions relevant at that time were given B-15 but they are not the employees of this Directorate. However, on considering this discriminatory position, the department is prepared to depute the appellants for the required one-year training and thereafter they can get benefits of B-15. The representative of the department who was present with Mr. Hafiz S.A. Rehman has agreed to consider these cases for deputing the appellants for one year training under the rules.
4. It is an admitted, position that the appellants were appointed in the year 1988 as Untrained Graduate Teachers (Tech.) on fixed salary of B-15 and they were not allowed regular pay scales perhaps on the analogy that they had not acquired the requisite training. The appellants remained silent for three years and were drawing fixed pay and did not make any representation. One of the appellants who is present in person, stated at the Bar that they made application to the department in 1987 to depute them for training but the request was not acceded to. In these circumstances, the appellants were fully aware that the one-year training is a requirement for putting them in regular scale of pay B-15. They have not challenged the appointment order in any forum for award of requisite Pay Scale No, 15 but were satisfied on the fixed pay in the same scale.
They were on probation and completed that period. In case they fail to acquire the requisite training, they will continue to draw the fixed pay till the date of retirement. The representative of the department has rightly, in the interest of justice, has agreed to depute the appellants for training as per rules and they will draw the salary also. With this statement, all the three appeals, which are identical on facts and law, are disposed of with the direction that the appellants be deputed for one year training and after successful training, the training as required under the rules, they may be allowed regular Grade No, 15 as they are already drawing the salary of Grade-15 and were appointed as such.