ALI MUHAMMAD SHEIKH Versus CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

ORDER

The appellants in each of the 3 present appeals claim 4 advance increments under the incentive scheme for acquiring higher qualifications for passing B. A. examinations. As their claim rejected by the Railway administration, they preferred grievance petitions before the learned VIIth Labour Court, which has dismissed their grievance petitions on the ground that their claim does not fall within the scope of the aforesaid scheme.

2. It may be pointed out that Ali Muhammad Sheikh, the appellant in Appeal No. SUK‑65/80, is a clerk in the Transport Department of the Railway administration, Muhammad Usman Mangsi, appellant in Appeal No. SUK‑66/80, is a clerk in the Civil Engineering department, and Amir Ahmad, appellant in Appeal No. SUK‑67/80, is a clerk in the Concrete Sleeper factory at Sukkur. Each of them is stated to have passed the B. A. examination while in service. They claim that in accordance with part (D) of the Incentive Scheme for Railway Officers and subordinates, they are entitled to 4 advance increments. It may be mentioned that the incentives and benefits provided under the said scheme fall into 4 parts or categories. Part (A) of the scheme relates to passing of examinations specified in the scheme. Persons passing such examinations are entitled to reimbursement of all expenses incurred in connection with the passing of the examinations. Part (B) of the scheme is in regard to passing of proficiency tests in certain foreign languages. A person obtaining such a proficiency test is entitled not only to refund of examination fee but also to a cash award of Rs. 500. Part (C) of the scheme is in respect of acquisition of minimum qualifications necessary to pre-recruitment to Class I service in specified Departments of the Railway administration. In case of persons obtaining such qualifications they are entitled to 2 advance increments or if no increment is due then Rs. 1,000 lump‑sum. Part (D) of the scheme upon which Mr. Abdul Hakeem, the learned representative of the appellants relied deals with acquisition of qualifications prescribed for Class II staff in specified Departments. The said part reads as follows :‑

"CLASS III STAFF

All Departments

Acquisition of qualifications prescribed for Class II officers in‑

(i) Motive (Power) & Mech.

Engineering Deptt.

(ii) Electrical Engineering Deptt.

(iii) Stores Deptt.

(iv) Signal Engineering Deptt.

(v) Civil Engineering Deptt.

(vi) Transportation (Traffic) &

Commercial Deptt.

(vii) Personnel Branch.

(viii) Medical Deptt.------- Four advance increments or when no increment issued Rs. 1,000 in lump sum. They should also be given special consideration for selection to Class II posts.

(1) Benefits admissible to employees of Personnel Branch shall be given only to those who have acquired the additional qualifica tions during the course of their employment in the Personnel Branch and only while they are serving in the Personnel Branch.

(2) The benefits shall be admissible if the qualifications are acquired after recruitment to class."

3. As was pointed out by this Tribunal in the case of Chief Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railway v. Akhtar Iqbal Appeal No. KAR‑362/80 (1981 PLC 504) for being entitled to the benefits and the increments provided under Part (D) of the scheme, the employee concerned must obtain the qualifications pres cribed for Class II officers in the department to which he is attached. The present appellants, Ali Muhammad Shaikh Muhammad Usman Mangsi and Amir Ahmad, would be entitled to advance increments under Part (D) of the scheme only if they had obtained qualifications for the Transport. Civil Engineering and the Signal Departments respectively. In other word; they would be entitled to the benefits under Part (D) of the scheme if is shown that B. A. was a qualification for Class II Officers in the Trans. port, Civil Engineering and the Signal department. Mr. Abdul Hakeem, however, was unable to show me that B. A. was the prescribed qualifica tion for Class II in any one of the aforesaid department. He, however, relied upon the letter, dated 17th September, 1966 of the Government of West Pakistan making certain clarifications regarding the incentive scheme, The said letter reads as follows ;‑‑

"The Vice‑Chairman,

West Pakistan Railway Board,

Lahore.

Sub.‑Incentive scheme for Railway Officers and subordinates.

Reference your Letter No. 957‑E/213 (E. Policy) dated 13th August, 1966. The point raised therein has been carefully con sidered by the Railway Board who are of the view that the phrase "the acquisition of qualifications Prescribed for Class it officers" in Part (D) of the incentive scheme as contained in Railway Board directives dated 15th December, 1961 and 22nd January, 1966 implies that if a subordinate employees acquires the same qualifications which entitle a Class II Officer for a benefit under the incentive scheme, he will get the benefits as indicated in Part (D) of the incentive scheme provided these qualifications are acquired after recruitment to the class.

Marghub Ahmad,

Section Officer E. I."

4. The above letter even if it is still in force, does not help the cases of the appellants. In the first place, it is not shown that B. A. is a prescribed qualification for Class II officers :n any of the Departments in which the appellants are employed. Moreover, as admittedly the appel lants have not yet been promoted as Class II Officers, they would be further debarred from entitlement to the benefits under Part (D) of the scheme as clarified by the letter, dated 17th September, 1966, which requires that the qualifications must be acquired after recruitment to the class i. e. Class II.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in all these 3 appeals and would accordingly dismiss the same.

Appeals dismissed.