EDO EDUCATION, KHANEWAL and others vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 4 others
This matter arises from petitions filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which accepted the respondents' appeals and granted them advance increments for improving their educational qualifications as Elementary English Teachers. The core legal question revolves around whether the respondents, who were Elementary English Teachers, were entitled to advance increments under the Government of Punjab notification dated 25-8-1983 read with a subsequent notification dated 7-7-2007, or if such increments were barred by a notification dated 26-6-1990. The Supreme Court held that the department failed to establish any clear bar under the notification dated 26-6-1990 against teachers like the respondents, and further concluded that the case did not warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as no substantial question of law of public importance was raised. Consequently, leave to appeal was declined and the petitions were dismissed.
- Are Elementary English Teachers entitled to advance increments for acquiring higher educational qualifications under the Government of Punjab notification dated 25-8-1983?
- Whether the notification dated 26-6-1990 places a bar on granting advance increments to teachers who have acquired higher qualifications?
- Does a dispute regarding the interpretation of departmental notifications for advance increments raise a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---These petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, are being disposed of together.
2. On account of having improved their respective educational qualifications, the respondents, who were Elementary English Teachers (ETT), applied to the department for granting them advance increments in terms of paragraph No, 15 of the Government of Punjab notification dated 25-8-1983.
The request was declined at the level of the department and they could not even succeed in the departmental appeal. However, on approaching the Punjab Service Tribunal, their appeals have been accepted and it has been found on the basis of their acquired qualifications and the interpretation/application of the said notification read with a subsequent notification dated 7-7- 2007 that the respondents were entitled to the advance increments, which were, accordingly, granted to them.
3. It has been .Argued by the learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Department, that the notification dated 25-8-1983 has been misconstrued, particularly in the circumstance when another notification dated 26-6-1990 was issued and as per para 2 thereof, the increment was not admissible to the employees for acquiring/possessing qualification for which higher pay scales are being sanctioned in the said notification. It is argued that according to Serial No,2, higher pay scales had been allowed to the respondents.
4. Heard. There is no denial of the fact that the respondents have acquired higher qualifications during the course of their employment and if the notification dated 26-6-1990 was not enforced, they would have been entitled to have the increment as per notification dated 25-8-1983 read with notification dated 7-7-2007, thus the question is narrowed down as to if they are prevented and precluded on account of the notification dated 26-6-1990, to which reference has been made in this regard, suffice it to say that this has not been the case of the respondents before the Service Tribunal. Even reading clause 2 of the notification along with Serial No,2 thereof, it is not spelt out any bar to the respondents who are ETT (teachers). In any case, we, in the circumstances, do not find this to be a fit case for the exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as no substantial question of law of public importance has been raised.
5. Resultantly, these petitions having no merits are, accordingly, dismissed. Leave to appeal declined.