Dr. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs FINANCE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the refusal of the respondent to grant two advance increments on account of past experience and performance. The core legal question is whether a government employee, upon joining a new post in a different department through proper channel, is entitled as a matter of right to carry forward advance increments previously drawn on account of past experience in a former institution without any governing statutory rule or instruction. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any statutory rule, instruction, or promise entitling the employee to such increments in the new establishment—which constitutes a fresh employment rather than a transfer—the allowance of advance increments falls within the discretion of the department. The Court laid down the principle that applying through the proper channel for a new post in a different department does not confer a vested right to carry over emoluments or advance increments from the previous employer unless specifically sanctioned by applicable rules or terms of the advertisement.
- Whether an employee joining a new post in a different department through proper channel is entitled to carry forward advance increments drawn in a previous organization as a matter of right?
- Does applying for a post through proper channel amount to a transfer from one department to another rather than a fresh employment?
- Can advance increments for past experience be claimed in the absence of a statutory rule, instruction, or promise by the employing department?
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21-5-1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No, 83(R) of 1995 filed by the petitioner against the refusal of the respondent to grant two advance increments on account of his past experience and performance, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner joined as Scientific Officer (BPS-17) in the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, hereinafter referred to as the P.A.R.C. He was allowed four advance increments for having degree in M. Phil. And two advance increments on the basis of his past experience. The petitioner, in response to an advertisement of the Ministry of Education for some posts of Lecturers, successfully applied for the above post and joined as a Lecturer in F.G. College, H-9, Islamabad, with effect from 20-7-1989. His salary was fixed without allowing him the benefit of above six advance increments. However, upon his representation, four advance increments were granted to the petitioner on account of having degree in M. Phil. His request for allowing two' advance increments on account of his past experience was turned down by the department, by the appellant authority as well as by the Tribunal through the impugned judgment. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition, the petitioner who has appeared in person, has vehemently contended that since he had applied for the above post of Lecturer through proper channel, he was entitled to the same emoluments which he was drawing in P.A.R.C. However, he has not been able to point out any statutory rule or instruction of the Education Department under which he can claim two advance increments as a matter of right on account of his past experience. In the absence of any such rule or instruction, it was within the discretion of the respondent not to have allowed the same to him. The factum that the petitioner had applied through proper channel for the above post of Lecturer has no nexus with the question, whether the petitioner was entitled to have two advance increments on account of his past experience. This was a fresh employment in a different establishment i,e, the education Department in place of P.A.R.C. And this was not a transfer from one department to another. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was entitled to claim salary and other benefits which were attached to the above post of Lecturer. He has not even pointed out that in the notice published for the above post any promise was made by the department to give him two advance increments on account of his past experience. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- NAVEED AKBAR and another vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SINDH and others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 978