MUHAMMAD AFZAL, MEMBER-III.- The appellant joined service as S.S.T, on the basis of prescribed qualification, i.e. B.A./B.Ed. He was promoted to the post of headmaster/BS-1 7 in 1985. He did M.A.
History in 1989 and thereafter M.Ed, in 1991. He claimed six advance increments in terms of Finance Department's circular letter dated 25.8.1983 on the basis of extra qualifications which he acquired during service immediately after acquiring the higher qualification in 1989 and then in 1991v However his representations for the grant of advance increments were kept pending. Finally, an advice was obtained from the Finance Department and the Finance Department regretted its inability to allow the advance increments to/the appellant in the year 2000 in the light of Finance Department's clarification letter dated 21.5.1998.
2. The appellant has argued his case himself pointing para 15 of Finance Department's Circular letter dated 25.-8.1983 which was applicable and operative at the time he acquired higher qualifications, It is further argued that apart from the legal vires of Finance Department's clarification letter dated 21.5.1.998 the said circular letter was not applicable with retrospective effect and, therefore, the appellant could not be denied what was due to him in the year 1 989 and 1991.
3. Learned District Attorney has pointed out that the case of the appellant was considered in the light of the latest policy instructions dated 21.5.1998 and regretted because the appellant stood promoted as head-master and as the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment of the same post were the same as already possessed by the appellant, he was not entitled to the benefit of advance increments.
4. I have meticulously followed the arguments from both sides. Under para 15 of the Finance Department's circular letter dated 25.8.1983 which was operative at the time when the appellant acquired higher qualifications, three advance increments were admissible to the S.S.Ts, even on promotion as head-master if they acquired Master's degree in Education (M.Ed.) and further three advance increments if they acquired Master's degree in any academic subject, meaning thereby that six advance increments were allowed to a S.S.T, or a headmaster/BS-17 if promoted from the rank of S.S.T, who was M.Ed, and M.A. An embargo-was placed on the grant of advance increments through circular letter dated 21.5.1998 in the case of incumbents of posts for which Master's degree was the prescribed qualification for direct recruitment. The legality of this circular letter is questionable because this condition was not imposed in the original circular letter dated 25.8.1983.
Moreover, it appeals to reason that an S.S.T recruited on the basis of B.A./B.Ed, should not be denied the benefit of advance increments on promotion as headmaster/BS-1 7 and his promotion should rather not become a dis-qualification rendering him ineligible for a normal benefit which was reasonably allowed to S.G. Teachers as an incentive to acquire higher qualification while staying in the same position. Moreover, it also appears irrational that an S.S.T, placed in the same scale (BS- 17) through move over or selection grade should get the benefit of advance increments on acquiring higher qualification but should not get these increments if promoted in the meantime to the same scale. The plain arguments of the appellant that apart from the legal objections against the circular letter dated 21.5.1998, the said circular letter could not be applied retrospectively could hardly be controverted. The appellant was entitled to receive the advance increments in 1989 and 1991 when he acquired higher qualification strictly in accordance with the circular letter dated 25.8.1983. It was fault of the department that inspire of his persistent representations he was not allowed the increments till he retired. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find the appellant entitled to the relief as prayed for. Appeal is, therefore, accepted.