1. ' ABDUL RASHEED MEMON (MEMBER-11)--The present appeal was tiled by the appellant under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act wherein he prayed that his request for placing him in BS-14 vide Notification dated 25-10-1995 was being denied by the respondents despite the tact that there was no deficiency as far as qualifications as required by the said notification. Giving the background in the case the appellant has stated that he joined the said Department in the year 1993 on the basis of his qualifications as being Graduate and having the Intermediate Drawing Certificate whereupon he was appointed as a Drawing Teacher and allowed the scale of BS-9. Subsequently Government of Sindh vide notification dated 25-10-1995 under Serial No,2 allowed the following:-- ' Elementary Teachers (BST) SV/JST/Drawing Masters/PTI/SLT/AWI Assistant Agriculture Instructor/Assu. Home Economics Teachers/Nursing Teachers/Music Teachers BSP-9.
2. ' All the present and future Elementary Teachers etc. Who possess the qualifications of BA/B.Sc.(IInd Div.) with C.T. Or equivalent prescribed professional training shall be placed in BS-14 with 1/3rd in Selection Grade BSP-15."
3. ' The appellant had the qualification of B.A. Since 1991 and was holder of Intermediate Grade Drawing certificate since 1982. After joining his service in 1993 he passed M.A. Also and obtained the qualification of C.T. In the year 1991-92. The result of the said examination was announced on 24-1- 1996. Armed with these documents he applied to the Department on 31-1-2000 for awarding of BS- 14 from the date of acquiring the required qualifications i,e, 24-1-1996. He was subsequently required to furnish the documents and so also the Government Notification dated 25-10-1995 by the District Education Officer, Hyderabad. He complied with the said directives and submitted all the required documents to the said office but his request was not granted.
4. ' The respondent No,2 in his written statement has contested that the appellant will be allowed the benefits from the date he had the required qualifications under the Government Rules but at the same time they have stated that since appellant is working as untrained Drawing Teacher on the fixed pay he is not entitled for an entry in the seniority of Drawing Teachers cadre for which he possessed the requisite qualification.
5. ' The Advocate of the appellant, Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari while arguing the case said that this respondent was supposed to consider the request of the appellant for allowing him BS-14 under the Government Rules and it was the same officer who had to take out his name from untrained Drawing Teachers list on acquiring the required qualification under the rules and placing him on the Seniority of Drawing Teacher cadre, therefore, this statement is absolutely illegal, uncalled for and mala fide and assailed the same on the ground that nothing remained to be done by the appellant. That he has given a misstatement a notice of which needs to be taken under the laws.
6. He also stated that the officers of Education' Department have been dealing in such matters in a most irresponsible manner and deliberately avoiding extending legal benefits to their employees.
7. He, therefore, requested that the appeal may be allowed with cost.
8. Assistant Advocate-General when confronted with the above situation said that the appellant had provided all the documents to the competent Authority and that the Seniority List was being issued by the Director who had himself admitted the facts thus there was no ground to oppose the benefits claimed by the appellant as they were valid, legal and within the framework of raw.
9. ' From the foregoing facts we came to the conclusion that denial of basic emoluments to a public servant by another public servant amounts to mismanagement, misconduct and even mala fide.
10. Apparently all the documents as required under Government Notification dated 25-10-1995 were on record and such a fact has not been denied even by the respondents and stated that he will be given the benefits as per Rules and are still adamant in allowing him the same. The statement does not appear to be appropriate and casts aspersions on their working efficiency and knowledge.
11. ' We had accordingly allowed this appeal under a short order on 3-5-2001 that appellant was entitled to the benefits provided in the said Notification with effect from 24-1-1996 i,e, the date on which he became eligible and had fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in the said notification, therefore, he is to be placed in BS-14 from the said date and allowed all consequential benefits from the said date. These are detailed reasons for the short order.
12. ' Given under our hands and seal of the Tribunal this 8th day of May,' 200 f at Karachi.