GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Another vs MUHAMMAD AMIN
The Government of Punjab sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent Executive Engineer's appeal for five advance increments. The core legal question was whether holders of A.M.I.E. qualifications were entitled to five advance increments sanctioned by the Finance Department's circular for N.P.S. 17 posts of Engineers requiring graduation as the minimum qualification, despite the circular being later recalled. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Service Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity, as the departmental construction of the rules initially granted the benefit and the recall of such an order was not permissible to divest the accrued entitlement. The Court laid down the principle that when departmental construction and rules create an entitlement based on the minimum qualifications of the post held, subsequent withdrawal cannot invalidate the accrued benefits of the incumbents.
- Whether holders of A.M.I.E. qualifications are entitled to advance increments granted for engineering posts requiring graduation as a minimum qualification?
- Can a departmental construction granting financial benefits to employees be unilaterally recalled to their detriment?
- Does the denial of advance increments by a provincial government raise a substantial point of law requiring examination under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The Government of Punjab seeks leave in, appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 11th October 1979.
2. The respondent, an Executive Engineer in the Highway Division had appealed to the Service Tribunal against the denial to him of the five advance increments which he claimed on the basis of circular of Finance Department dated 6-12-1975, which was later on 13-9:1976 recalled. The Service Tribunal held that "mandatory provisions have been made in the Central Engineering Services, where .The basic qualifi--cations required is A.M.I.E. And the B. Sc. Degree has been considered equivalent for exemption purposes. The equivalence is there in the Pakistan Engineering Council Act also in view of this factual position the grant of five advance increments to holders of A.M.I.E. (Pakistan) cannot be denied". The Government's view point before the Tribunal and as well as in this petition for leave is that the benefit of five advance increments was avail--able to only Graduate Engineers and not to those who held A.M.I.E. Degrees which was in fact a Diploma,
3. The circular dated 6-12-1975 sanctioned with effect from 1-7-1975 five advance increment to incumbents of posts "in N.P.S. 17 posts of Engineers, the prescribed minimum qualifications for which is graduation in any branch of Engineering". It is not denied that N.P.S. 17 posts in the Punjab Service of Engineers to which the respondent belonged prescribed Graduation as the minimum qualification. Even the departmental construc--tion of this dispensation was the same as has been done by the Service Tribunal, for by its circular dated 19-4-1976, the Finance Department inform-- ed that "officers working against the posts of Engineers in N.P.S. 17 who passed "A" & "B" course of A.M.I.E. (Pakistan) may be allowed 5 advance increments." This departmental construction was withdrawn by the letter dated 13-9-1976.
4. The circular granting five advance increments provided for the, minimum qualifications of the posts as prescribed in the rules. Therefore, the incumbents of those posts were not necessarily required to be Graduates if they held the posts for which Graduation was the minimum qualifica-- tion. The entitlement in their favour was created and given effect to by the Department. Not only, therefore, the rules entitled them to the benefit so did 4 the Departmental construction of it and a recall of an order of this descrip--tion was not possible even with the reservation that was made with regard to the non-recovery of the payments already made. The decision of the Service Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity so fat as the conclusion is concerned. There is no point of law requiring examination by this Court. We find no merit in the petition which is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MAHBOOB KHAN and 242 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Railways Islamabad and 5 others 1991 PLC (C.S.) 415
- A.D.NASIM vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and others 1989 PLC (C.S.) 455
- SALAMAT MASIH vs THE STATE K.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases -17