' The appellant Muhammad Mukhtar Khokhar was recruited as a Lecturer in BS-17 with effect from 1- 9-1982 and was allowed two advance increments of Rs,50 each on account of his excellent academic record (First Division throughout from Matric to B.Sc. Engineering). He was eventually inducted as an Assistant Engineer in BS-17 in the Communication and Works Department with effect from 1-3-1983 on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. The appellant sought fixation of his pay in BS-17 with 3 increments on the ground that he had been given two advance increments by the University of Engineering and Technology in BS-17 on 1-9- 1982 and would have obviously got increment on 1-12-1983 had he continued in the said University.
On his representation, dated 6-2-1992, the Secretary, Communication and Works Department (i,e, respondent No,2) recommended his case for fixation of pay inclusive of 3 advance increments earned by him in the University (2 advance increments plus one increment for the period of service from 5-4-1982 to 28-2-1983 rendered by him in the University of Engineering and Technology) vide their letter at Annexure-F (page 13). The Finance Department (i,e, respondent No,1) rejected the proposal vide their letter, dated 20-1-1993 (Annexure G) conveyed to the appellant by the respondent No,2 on 17-5-1993 (Annexure H). His review petition was also rejected by Finance Department as indicated in C&W Department's letter, dated 17-11-1993 (Anneuxre K) page 17.
Consequently, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal on 27-12-1993.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended, in the course of his arguments that the decision taken by the respondent No,1 was opposed to natural justice, fair play, equity and good conscience and was, therefore, void ab initio and of no legal effect.
3. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel was that the appellant had been subjected to discrimination inasmuch as the Finance Department had itself allowed two advance increments to Mr. Sajid Tanveer Khan on his joining the Punjab Government w,e,f, 16-7-1983 in lieu of 2 completed years of service in WASA (LDA). Learned counsel asserted that the service rendered by the appellant from 5-4-1982 to 28-2-1983 was no doubt less than one complete year but the appellant was granted 2 advance increments by the University of Engineering and Technology and had earned one increment on 1-12-1982 and it was how it should be treated equivalent to 3 completed years of service. According to him, the appellant was entitled to fixation of pay by counting 3 advance increments as he joined C&W Department on 1-3-1983.
4. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, learned District Attorney controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that on a proposal submitted by Finance Department. (i,e, respondent No,1), the Chief Minister had decided that the decision taken by him on 23-5-1987 to disallow advance increments for the past service under autonomous bodies/local bodies would be applicable to those who would be appointed after 23-5-1987 and the persons appointed in the Punjab Government prior to this date i,e, 23-5-1987 might be allowed the concession of advance increments on completed years of service. He observed that the case of Mr. Sajid Tanveer Khan could not be quoted as a genuine precedent in this case because the said officer had rendered two completed years of service in WASA (LDA) whereas the appellant had rendered less than one year service (from 5-4-1982 to 28-2-1983) in the University of Engineering and Technology. He, therefore, maintained that the appellant had not been subjected to any discrimination whatsoever.
5. Learned District Attorney also referred to Rule 11.3 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume I, Part I under which the service rendered under a local fund "will not count as duty performed".
According to that Rule, "A competent Authority may, however, allow previous service in such cases to count as duty performed on such terms as it thinks fit". He, therefore, maintained that the appellant could not invoke any legal right in his favour to have his pay fixed at equivalent stage of pay under Government (by being allowed 3 increments earned by him in the University) as neither the rules nor the precedent quoted by him supported his cause.
6. Learned District Attorney further relied on written objections to say that Government had issued no such instructions under which 2 advance increments could be allowed to an Assistant Engineer, on his joining Government service if he had secured First Division right from Matriculation to B.Sc.
Engineering. He, therefore, averred that the Government was not bound to follow the concession of 2 advance increments allowed to the appellant by the University.
7. Finally, learned District Attorney maintained that the Government had offered appointment to the appellant as Assistant Engineer in the C&W Department" with salary in NPS-17 (Rs,900--50- -1150/60--1750--100--2250) with usual allowances " In view of this offer of appointment which was accepted by the appellant, he had no legal right or even moral ground to seek the benefit of 3 increments which he was enjoying in the University before he decided to join Government service on his own free violation.
8. We have heard the arguments and have perused the record. The fact remains that the appellant cannot invoke any legal right to have his pay fixed at the same scale (under Government) at which he was drawing pay in the University (i,e, by getting 3 increments earned by him in the University included in his pay under Government), for the obvious reason that such a concession could only be extended under the law to a Government servant joining an other Government Department under Rule 4.4 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab) Volume I, Part. The appellant had rendered service in a local fund and his past service could not have, therefore, been treated at par with Government service warranting similar treatment.
9. Government has, however, already taken a decision to count completed years of service in a Local Bodies/autonomous body for the grant of advance increments to a person joining Government service. The question is whether 2 advance increments allowed to the appellant would provide a reasonable ground for one to infer therefrom that the University had virtually counted his academic excellence as equal to two years' service rendered by those who did not possess such an excellent record. Our view is that the edge of the appellant in academic record over the other newly recruited lecturers was equated by the University with two completed years of experience.
That being so, it would not be material to count period of service rendered by the appellant in the University to deny him the benefit of 2 advance increments just as it would not be reasonable on his part either to seek (he benefit of the 3rd increment that he got in the University on 1-12-1982 because he was not a Government servant and that benefit would not flow to him in pay fixation on joining Government service as Assistant Engineer on 1-3-1983. The crux of the above analysis is that he should be deemed to have completed 2 years' service in the University in view of the 2 advance increments allowed to him by the University. It was for the University to determine as to whether advance increments should be given in lieu of experience, for academic excellence, and once the University allowed that benefit by converting academic excellence into experience, it would not legally lie with the Finance Department to sit in judgment over the basis prompting the University for such an action. University is even otherwise represented by the Finance Department and is headed by the Governor as Chancellor. It would not, therefore, be graceful on the part of the Government to disown here something to which it gave its approval in the University.
10. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the advance increments that might be allowed by an autonomous/local body to its employees either on account of part experience or on account of academic achievements should be treated equivalent to completed year of service for the purpose of grant of advance increments to such a Government servant as and when he joins an equivalent post/pay scale under Government. However, that would not entitle him to an increment which he might have availed merely because 1st December intervened to raise his salary as in the instant case.
11. The appeal is partially allowed inasmuch as the appellant shall be entitled to avail the benefit of two advance increments only in NPS-17 with effect from 1-3-1983. Of course, he shall not be entitled to increment that he drew in the University on 1-12-1982 on joining Government service on 1-3-1983, as he could have drawn such a benefit only if he had rendered regular services under Government before joining as Assistant Engineer in C&W Department.
12. The parties are left to bear their own costs.