Find a Lawyer

Case No. 623/1559 of 1981, decided on 15th December, 1982.

‑‑‑

----Read with Government of Punjab Notification No. F.D.‑P. R. 10‑71‑72, dated 18th June, 1973‑P. 'f. C. Teachers appointed in N. P. S.‑6‑Deputed to work in High Schools‑Claim of entitlement to N. P. S.‑8 denied by Education Department‑Held: Teachers have been placed in proper and correct N. P. S.‑6 in accordance with their qualifications, entitlement and rules, which they accepted while joining service.

Rana A. Hameed Talib for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheerna, District Attorney for Respondents.

Messrs Abdul Razzak, Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Manshah and Muhammad Tufail have made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein they have impleaded Director Public Instructions for Schools, Lahore and District Education Officer, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the action of the respondents in continuing to fix the salary of the appellants in N. P. S. 6 be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and they be directed to pay their salary in N. P. S. 8.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were appointed as P. T. C. teachers in 1976 in the N. P. S. 6. The appellants have been urging that as they are working in High Schools since then, they should have been allowed N. P. S. 8 instead of N. P. S. 6 but their request has not been acceded by the Education Department. According to the appel lants the action of the respondents in continuing to pay the appellants in the scale N. P. S.‑6 is without lawful authority and without any legal effect. The appellants moved the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction as there was no final order for not granting the N. P. S. 8 to the appellants. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellants moved the Depart ment and a reply was received from the District Education Officer (as per Annexure E'). After this order the writ petition remained pending but was disposed of (as per Annexure 'F') vide judgment, dated 19th October, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued this case by sub mitting that the appellants were appointed P. T. C. teachers in N. Y. S. 6 but they were deputed to serve in the High Schools. As they have been working in the High Schools, they are entitled for the N. P. S.‑8, which has been denied by respondents. He prayed that the respondents be directed to allow the appellants N. P. S.‑8 instead of N. P. S.‑6 as they are entitled for the same. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that as no final order was passed by the District Education Officer, Lahore; hence they had to move the High Court in writ jurisdiction. When the final order was available and also their writ was disposed of by the High Court, they have filed the appeal before us. Thus, they were forced to go to the High Court under the said circumstances and as soon as the writ was disposed off, they came to this Tribunal for redress of the grievances. Thus, their appeal is within time. Controverting these argu ments, the learned District Attorney submitted that the appellants being the P. T. C. teachers are being given the correct grade of N. P. S.‑6 in accordance 'with the Punjab (Non‑Gazetted) Teaching Staff (National Pay Scales) Rules, 1973, notified by the Government of Punjab, Finance Department Notification No. F. D.‑P. R.‑10‑71‑72, dated 18th June, 1973, amended from time to time (Refer Annexure "D" of appeal) wherein N. P. S.‑6 and N. P. S.‑8 are admissible to the following category of teachers :‑----

(1) Junior Vernacular Teachers/Primary Teacher N. P. S.-6

Certificate Teachers and others in correspon dence grade.

(2) Senior Vernacular Teachers/Oriented Tea.‑ N. P. S.‑8

chers/Persian Teacher/Arabic Teacher/Urdu

Teachers in Middle/High and normal Schools

and other equivalent posts.

According to above rules, being P. T. C. teachers, they are entitled to N. P. S. 6, according to their qualifications. The learned District Attorney concluded that there is no force in their appeal which is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record. We have also perused the Orders No. 836/E‑1, dated 5th February, 1976 and No. 5766/E‑6, dated 27th July, 1976, wherein the appellants were appointed in N. P. S.‑6, keeping in view their qualifications and this National Pay Scale was accepted by tine appellants while joining the service. We have also satisfied ourselves they were given correct National Pay Scale i. e. N. P. S..6, in accordance with the rules and N. P. S.‑8 is meant for other senior category of teachers. Thus, no discrimination has been done with the appellants and they have been placed in proper and correct National Pay Scale in accordance to their qualifications and entitlement in accordance with the Punjab (Non‑Gazetted) Teaching Staff (National Pay Scales) Rules, 1973, Notified by Government of Punjab, Finance Department Notification No. FD‑PR 10‑71/72, dated 18th June, 1973, amended from time to time. (Refer Annexure 'D' with appeal).

6. Keeping the above analysis in view, there is no merits in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

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.