Find a Lawyer

Case No. 526/2008 of 1982.

‑‑ Upgradation of status and pay scale ‑C. T. teachers demanding upgradation and selection grade on analogy of S. S. Ts.‑Difference in minimum basic qualification‑Government not bound to increase pay on strength of qualification only.

‑ S. 4‑Jurisdiction of Tribunal ‑ Determination of grades for various posts is absolute responsibility and domain of Government- Basis being level of responsibility and matter of demand and supply' etc. held, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to upgrade posts as matter falls within purview of Government only.

Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Appellants.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑Messrs Rashid Ahmad Aamil and fifteen others who are C. T. Teachers, have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded Secretary to Government of 'the Punjab, Education Depart ment, and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, they have prayed that the orders, dated 16th May, 1977, 15th April, 1975, 3rd June, 1974 and 18th June, 1973 passed by the respondents be set aside and the status of the appellants be upgraded, in the manner as it has been done in the case of the S. S. Ts.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart ment and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the main grievance in the present case was that while they are still placed in N. P. S. 8 but the S. S. Ts. have been allowed N. P. S. 14, which according to the learned counsel was great act of injustice. It has been further argued that when the S. S. T. S. have been allocated N. P. S. 14 and later on N. P. S. 16, at least the appellants should have been allowed N. P. S. 14 as selection grade. Another grievance which has been ventilated is that 30%. selection grade has been allotted to S. S. Ts., but the same has not been done in the case of the appellants. What has been urged before us is that this Tribunal should give direction to the respondents to upgrade the posts of C. T. (Appellants) as the same has been done in the case of S. S. Ts.

5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has taken a categorical stand with the assistance of the representative of the Finance Depart ment, that this Tribunal jurisdiction is barred as it does not fall within its purview to upgrade the post(s) as such the demand does not fall within the terms and conditions of civil servants. While referring to the merits of the case, learned District Attorney has urged that the pay scale is always linked with the prescribed qualifications under the rules and further admissibility of grade does not depend only on the qualification but other prior factors which had been taken into account while fixing the pay scales of the Civil Servants.

6. We have attended carefully the arguments advanced by the parties in this case and find that the basic qualification for the C. T. would be F. A., whereas in the case of S. S. T. the person would be a double graduate, viz. B. A., B. Ed. ; Keeping this basic qualification in view, we do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the cadre of C. Ts. there are people who are M. A. and Double Graduate who are not being given the same treatment as those of the persons recruited in the cadre of S. S. Ts. We hold this view on the ground that it is upto the person with higher qualifications to come‑for ward for a post which carries with it lesser emoluments and Government is not bound to increase their pay on the strength of their educational qualifications. We have before us the example of Naib‑Tehsildars cadre where the minimum qualification prescribed is F. A. only, but it is a matter of common knowledge that we have people in this cadre with much higher qualifications i.e. M. A. and Law Graduates. It does not mean that M. A. and Law graduates, if having crept into the service of their own choice as Naib‑Tebsildars should claim pay of higher grade. We are not convinced with the present arguments advanced m this case that they would be better qualified person than the members of the said Tehsildars cadre. We have also taken into consideration the force full arguments made by the representative of the Finance Department that the level of responsibility is the basis for determination of grades for various posts. The matter of demand and supply is another factor which is the absolute responsibility of the Government to fix the pays of various grades. Besides these points on merits, we are also pursuaded by the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to upgrade the posts as this matter falls within the purview of the Government only, However, we also do not find the case of the appellant at par with the case of the Readers of the Lahore High Court in which this Tribunal has decided that the said Readers are entitled N. P. S. 16 to bring at par at least with the Readers of the members of the Board of Revenue Punjab, hierarchy much lower than the Judge of the High Court.

7. .In view of the above, we do not find any justification to give any direction to the respondents to upgrade the post of C. Ts. to N. P. S. 12 or N. P. S. 14 and to bring them at par with the post of S. S. Ts. parti cularly when on merits, we find that C. Ts. have different qualification while S. S. Ts. have qualifications of their own. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. However, there will be no order as to costs.

M. I. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.