MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE
This appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which denied the appellant's request for five advance increments under the Government of Punjab, Finance Department memo dated 6-12-1975. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a diploma holder, was entitled to these increments, given the Tribunal's restrictive interpretation of the eligibility criteria. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in 'Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin', held that the Tribunal erred in distinguishing the appellant's case based on his diploma status, as the A.B. Course AMIE (Pakistan) is also a diploma course. The Court determined that the appellant's entitlement was fully covered by the cited precedent, which established that the benefit of advance increments applies to incumbents of posts where the prescribed qualification is graduation, regardless of whether the specific incumbent is a graduate or holds a recognized diploma equivalent. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and affirmed the appellant's entitlement to the five advance increments.
- Is a diploma holder entitled to five advance increments under the Government of Punjab Finance Department memo dated 6-12-1975?
- Does the precedent in 'Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin' apply to diploma holders seeking advance increments?
- Can a Service Tribunal deny advance increments to an employee by distinguishing their qualification from that of a graduate when the underlying course is equivalent?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑ ‑The above appeal with the leave of this Court is directed against the order of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 8‑9‑1991. By the impugned order, the learned Service Tribunal rejected the request of the appellant for grant of 5 advance increments in terms of Government of Punjab, Finance Department memo No.FD.PR‑18‑1/74 (Pt. 1) date 6‑12‑1975. Leave was granted in the case as follows:‑
"Leave to Appeal is granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution as the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be not in conformity with Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin (1991 SCMR 675)".
2. The learned Tribunal refused to grant the prayer of the appellant for advance increments on the ground that such increments were admissible under the aforesaid memo to those incumbents of the post B‑17 for which prescribed qualification is graduation in any branch of engineering. The above memo/notification came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin (1991 SCMR 675). In the above‑cited case, this Court while refusing leave to appeal against the order of Service Tribunal made the following observations:‑
4. The circular granting five advance increments provided for the minimum qualification of the posts as prescribed in the rules Therefore, the incumbents of those posts were not necessarily required to be Graduate if they held the posts for which Graduation was the minimum qualifications. The entitlement in their favour way created and given effect by the Department. Not only, therefore, the rules entitled them to the benefit so did the Departmental construction of it and a recall of an order of this description 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 far 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."
3. The learned Tribunal attempted to distinguish the above case by saying that the above case related to the officers working against the posts o‑ Engineers in B‑17 who passed A.B. Course AMIE (Pakistan) while the appellant is only a diploma holder. It is not disputed by the learned counsel fog the respondents that the A.B. Course AMIE (Pakistan) is also a diploma course. In view of the above stated position, the case of the appellant is fully covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Government of Punjab anti another v. Muhammad Amin (supra) and we accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Service Tribunal and hold that the appellant is entitled to 5 advance increments in terms of memo/Notification No. FD. PR‑18‑1/74 (Pt.l), dated 6‑12‑1975. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
AA./M‑2142/S Order accordingly