Find a Lawyer

Case No. 79/61 of 1983, decided on 13th May, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 16‑‑Education Institutions (Taking‑over) Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R 118) para. 7(2)‑‑Pay of post‑‑Unqualified S.S. Teacher holding post of Headmaster in Taken‑over school on 1‑10‑1972‑‑Cannot be equated with those qualified on such date‑‑Improvement of qualification as B.Ed subsequently would not confer upon such unqualified Teacher Status so acquired by S.S. Teacher having requisite qualifications of B.Ed on 1‑10‑1972 and such qualified Teacher would remain senior to Teacher not qualified on 1‑10‑1972 and such unqualified Teacher would be entitled to Pay Scale No. 17 in accordance with his seniority position and not earlier‑‑Plea that having worked as Headmaster such Teacher would be entitled to pay of post (in Pay Scale No. 17) not accepted.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Mr. Bashir Ahmad Abid, Headmaster, Government Muhammadia. High School, Vehari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, and the Director Public Instruction (Schools) Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that respondents be directed to award NPS‑17 (Rs.900/1,750), attached to the post of Headmaster to the appellant w. e. f. 1‑10‑1972.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was untrained Headmaster on 14‑3‑1972/1‑10‑1972, when his services were Nationalised under MLR‑118. He qualified himself as B.Ed. on 15‑2‑1973. The appellant had been inviting kind attention of the authorities through good offices of Nationalised High Schools Headmasters/Headmistresses Association vide letter, dated 26‑7‑1979, but the matter remained under active consideration without any final decision. The appellant submitted further representation, dated 3‑7‑1982, which was forwarded by the Director of Education, Multan to Director, Public Instruction, Punjab, with former's letter, dated 7‑5‑1982. The Director of Education, Multan, informed the District Education Officer, Vehari, vide his letter, dated 3‑8‑1982, that similar cases were pending in the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, and as such decision in the case of appellant would be taken after the decision of the Court in those pending cases. A notification No. S.O. (ICS.) 5‑33/75(P), dated 18/22‑4‑1980, was issued whereby 12 Headmasters/Headmistresses were awarded N.P.S.‑17, with immediate effect and the scale of S.S.T. from the date of passing of B.Ed. Although appellant had attained the requisite qualifications in 1973, i.e. within the prescribed period of two years much before the date of issue of that notification but his name was not included in that notifi cation. The matter was brought to the notice of Deputy Secretary concerned but no final decision has been taken in this matter. In view of the abovementioned facts the appellant has now come before this Tribunal to be declared as having been entitled to the pay of Headmaster in NPS‑17 from 1972 the date when the Institution was Nationalized. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Ordinance of 1974, which according to him, would entitled a civil servant appointed to the post or grade of pay sanctioned for such post/grade. It has been forcefully submitted that since the appellant has been holding the post of Headmaster and had been performing full duties of the said post, he was by virtue of holder of the post of Headmaster entitled to NPS‑17 attached to the post of Headmaster irrespective of the fact whether he fulfilled the requisite qualification of the post or not. He has further pointed out that the appellant passed B.Ed. Examination on 15‑2‑1973, much before the issuance of the said notification, therefore, his improvement in qualification would also go a long way to support his contention. He has further relied on the notification, dated 4‑4‑1977, issued by the Governor of the Punjab, according to which all the Headmasters/Headmistresses were awarded NPS‑17, who after the nationalization of privately managed schools had performed and had been performing the duties of such posts w.e.f. 1‑10‑1972 or from any subsequent date. He has raised the point of discrimination by submitting that when all the Headmasters the Government of Punjab had awarded them the pay of NPS‑17 the omission of his name would be an act 'of discrimination on the part of Government.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the case of the appellant was distinguishable from the case of other Headmasters who were Nationalised under MLR‑118, and were given the protection of pay by virtue of the said MLR‑118. According to the learned District Attorney as the appellant was not a qualified Headmaster at the relevant time and date, therefore, under the provisions of section 7(2) of MLR‑118 his pay was not protected and thus he could not be equated with those Headmasters who were duly qualified at the relevant time. Learned District Attorney has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 10‑11‑1981, wherein, this issue was raised before their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and it was decided that such untrained person at the time of nationalization had no protection of Pay Scale under MLR‑118. With regard to the plea of the appellant that as he had improved his qualification within two years of such nationalization, he should be considered at par with those Headmasters whose pay stood protected under MLR‑118. Learned District Attorney has come forward with an argument that those S.S.Ts. having requisite qualification of B.A./B.Ed., from the date of nationali zation, would naturally stand senior to the appellant as according to the rules the basis of seniority among S.S.Ts. is the date of passing the B.Ed., Examination, therefore, the appellant could not be allowed NPS‑17 as such. The stress laid down by the learned 'District Attorney on the point that improvement in qualification at a later stage was not going to help the appellant as his qualification of B.A./B.Ed. had to be taken into consideration at the relevant date viz. 1‑10‑1972 and not at a later stage.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and are of the considered opinion that the crucial point in this case would be whether the appellant was a qualified S.S.T. holding the post of Headmaster at the relevant time i.e..1‑10‑1972, or not at the time of promulgation of MLR‑118. The record of this case fully establish that the appellant was unqualified S.S.T. holding the post of Headmaster, therefore, his plea that he should be equated with those who were fully qualified on the said date, fall to the ground.

The improvement of his educational qualification would in no manner confer upon him the status which was so required on the regular date. The S.S.T. having the requisite qualification on B.A./B.Ed. at the relevant time would definitely remain senior to him and would of course be entitled to Grade‑17, in accordance with the position of seniority and not earlier.

8. In view of the above, we do not find any force in this appeal nor find any discrimination committed by the Department against him, and proceed to dismiss the same as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.

A. E.

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.