' ROSHAN ALI MANGI, (MEMBER).---The appellant is working as Assistant Director (Wireless) in BPS-16 in the Office of Postmaster-General, Northern Punjab, Rawalpindi. He claims four advance increments on account of his earning B.A. Qualification on the basis of Finance Division's O.M., dated 1-7-1987 followed by O.Ms., dated 29-6-1991 and 8-7-1996, wherein it has been provided that advance increments shall be allowed to the officials in BPS-1 to 16 for possessing or acquiring higher qualification over and above the prescribed qualification in the relevant recruitment rules to the extent given therein.
2. The claim of the appellant is that he joined the department in 1957 as a Time Scale Clerk and later on promoted as Inspector Post Offices in BPS-9 in the year 1973 as a departmental candidate for which the minimum qualification was Matriculate plus 5 years service experience. He improved his qualification during service as F.A. In 1977 and then as B.A. In 1981. Thus, he became entitled for the grant of 4 advance increments, as provided by the Finance Division's O.Ms. Referred to above.
3. Pre-admission comments were called for from respondent No,3 (D.G. Post Office, Islamabad).
The comments have been filed whereby the respondent Department had taken the position that the qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, under the Recruitment Rules, is B.A./B.Sc.B.Com. As such the official would be entitled to advance increments only on acquiring Master degree. It has been further clarified that under the rule, the relevant educational qualification prescribed for initial appointment to a post would be applicable even in the cases of departmental candidates for the grant of advance increments on higher qualification.
4. The respondents have also referred to Finance Division's O.M. Dated 4-10-1992 whereby in case where no qualification has been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and the post is to be filled up 100% by promotion, the advance increments would be granted on possessing/acquiring higher qualification than the prescribed qualification for the feeding cadre. But in case of the appellant, the post of Assistant Superintendent is not filled up 100% by promotion but 25% posts are filled up by direct recruitment, for which the prescribed qualification for initial appointment is B.A./B.Sc.
Therefore, he cannot be granted the benefit claimed by him.
5. With these submissions, the respondents have prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel alongwith appellant as well as counsel for the respondent's side alongwith departmental representative. After detailed arguments and examination of the relevant rules, we find that the educational qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices, has been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules is Graduate or equivalent from a recognized University. Since this post is not to be filled up 100% by promotion, therefore, the qualification which is prescribed for initial recruitment would be considered for the grant of advance increments and as per criteria laid down in the Finance Division's O.Ms. Referred to by the appellant, he can only be granted advance increments on acquiring higher qualification than the prescribed qualification in the Recruitment Rules. As such he can only become entitled for that benefit if he possesses higher qualification of M.A.
7. Moreover, the appellant based his claim on the ground that for the feeding cadre of his post, the prescribed qualification according to him, was Matriculate. But the rules on which the appellant relied upon were old Rules, of 1952. However, copy of Recruitment Rules of 1987 presented by the respondents, shows that educational qualification for recruitment to the post of Time Scale Clerk is Intermediate and not. Matriculate as claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the stand of the appellant is not correct.
8. Admittedly, the appellant was promoted as Inspector Post Offices in BPS-9 in the year 1973 and according to him he improved his qualification as F.A. In 1977 and as B.A. In 1981 whereas the incentive of advance increments was announced for the first time in 1987. There was incentive on acquiring higher qualification than prescribed one in the postal department. However, this benefit was also made available to employees of the Secretariat since 1987. Thus, appellant claims this benefit at the qualification prescribed earlier whereas the prescribed qualification of his present post is B.A. The appellant's counsel could not convince the Bench as to how this incentive could be given retrospective effect, which actually came into force w,e,f, 1-7-1987, onwards specially when B.A. Has become the prescribed requirement for the appointment of post, which the appellant is holding at present.
9. As regards the precedents quoted by the appellant, we observe that in the case which was decided by this Tribunal, the Department has gone to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Tribunal. As such the decision of this- Tribunal, in that case which is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, cannot be made applicable to the case of the appellant. As regards the decision of Wafaqi Mohtasib in other cases quoted by the appellant, since the facts of those cases are not before us, we are unable to give our finding in those cases. Neither they are party to the present case nor the appellant was a party in those cases. Thus, we see no justification for applicability of decision in other cases to the case in hand which even otherwise is not covered by the rules and law applicable to this case.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the arguments of the appellant, and dismiss the appeal in limine, having no merit.