Teachers are not eligible for Selection grade and additional financial benefits.
| Teachers are not eligible for Selection grade and additional financial benefits. |
اساتذہ سلیکشن گریڈ اور اضافی مالی فوائد کے لیے اہل نہیں
تمہیدی تعارف
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے ایک اہم فیصلہ دیا جس میں پنجاب کے گریجویٹ پرائمری ٹیچرز کے سلیکشن گریڈ اور اضافی مالی فوائد کے مطالبے کو مسترد کیا۔ یہ اساتذہ 1995 میں کنٹریکٹ کی بنیاد پر تعینات ہوئے تھے اور 2004 میں باقاعدہ ریگولرائز کیے گئے۔
اساتذہ کی درخواست
اساتذہ نے سلیکشن گریڈ کے تحت اضافی مالی فوائد مانگے اور دلیل دی کہ وہ 1983 کے نوٹیفکیشن اور قواعد کی بنیاد پر اس کے اہل ہیں۔ پنجاب سروس ٹربیونل نے ان کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا اور سلیکشن گریڈ کا اطلاق کیا۔
سپریم کورٹ کا جائزہ
سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلہ کیا کہ قواعد اور نوٹیفکیشن میں 'گریجویٹ پرائمری ٹیچرز' کے مخصوص عہدے شامل نہیں ہیں۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ سلیکشن گریڈ کے فوائد کے لیے حکومت کی جانب سے مخصوص پالیسی کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے، جو ان عہدوں کے لیے وضع نہیں کی گئی تھی۔ ٹربیونل نے بغیر پالیسی کے فوائد دینے میں غلطی کی۔
اہم قانونی نکتہ
سلیکشن گریڈ کوئی تقرری یا پروموشن نہیں ہے بلکہ ایک مالیاتی اعزاز ہے جو طویل عرصے تک کسی خاص پوسٹ پر تعینات سرکاری ملازم کو دیا جاتا ہے۔ اس کا اطلاق صرف اس وقت ہوتا ہے جب حکومت نے واضح پالیسی کے ذریعے اس کے لیے اہلیت مقرر کی ہو۔ عدالت یا ٹربیونل حکومت کو پالیسی بنانے پر مجبور نہیں کر سکتا۔
عدالتی فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ نے پنجاب سروس ٹربیونل کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا اور اپیلیں منظور کرتے ہوئے اساتذہ کے سلیکشن گریڈ اور مالی فوائد کے مطالبے کو مسترد کر دیا۔
نتیجہ اور سبق
اساتذہ سلیکشن گریڈ کے لیے صرف اس وقت اہل ہوں گے جب حکومت نے واضح طور پر پالیسی کے ذریعے ان کے عہدے کو اس سہولت کے دائرہ کار میں شامل کیا ہو۔ عدالت نے یہ اصول دوبارہ واضح کیا کہ مالی فوائد اور سلیکشن گریڈ کے فیصلے مکمل طور پر ایگزیکٹو کی صوابدید میں ہیں اور ٹربیونل یا عدالت مداخلت نہیں کر سکتی۔
### ٹیچرز سلیکشن گریڈ سے متعلق سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
Summary
سپریم کورٹ کے ایک حالیہ فیصلے میں، عدالت نے ایک تنازعہ کو حل کیا جس میں متعدد اساتذہ شامل تھے، جنہیں 1995 میں پنجاب میں بطور 'گریجویٹ پرائمری ٹیچرز' کنٹریکٹ کی بنیاد پر تعینات کیا گیا تھا۔ ان اساتذہ کو ابتدائی طور پر کنٹریکٹ میں توسیع اور حتمی ریگولرائزیشن کی شرائط کے ساتھ عارضی طور پر رکھا گیا تھا، جو 2004 میں حاصل کیا گیا تھا۔
اساتذہ نے 'سلیکشن گریڈ' کے تحت اضافی مالی فوائد مانگے، یہ دلیل دیتے ہوئے کہ وہ کچھ اصولوں اور 1983 کے نوٹیفکیشن کی بنیاد پر اہل ہیں۔ پنجاب سروس ٹربیونل نے اساتذہ کا ساتھ دیتے ہوئے انہیں سلیکشن گریڈ دیا تھا۔
تاہم سپریم کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔ اس نے پایا کہ قواعد اور نوٹیفکیشن کا حوالہ دیا گیا ہے جس میں اساتذہ کی مخصوص پوسٹوں کا احاطہ نہیں کیا گیا ہے۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ سلیکشن گریڈ کے فوائد کے لیے مخصوص حکومتی پالیسی کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے، جو ان عہدوں کے لیے وضع نہیں کی گئی۔ ٹریبونل نے ایسی پالیسی کے بغیر فوائد دینے میں غلطی کی تھی۔ نتیجتاً، عدالت نے اپیلیں منظور کرتے ہوئے ٹریبونل کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔
### Supreme Court Ruling on Teacher’s Selection Grade
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, the court addressed a dispute involving several teachers, appointed on a contractual basis in 1995 as 'Graduate Primary Teachers' in Punjab. These teachers were initially hired temporarily with conditions for contract extension and eventual regularization, which was achieved in 2004.
The teachers sought additional financial benefits under the 'selection grade,' arguing that they were eligible based on certain rules and a 1983 notification. The Punjab Service Tribunal had sided with the teachers, granting them the selection grade.
However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision. It found that the rules and notification cited did not cover the teachers' specific posts. The court clarified that selection grade benefits require a specific government policy, which was not formulated for these positions. The Tribunal had erred in granting benefits without such a policy in place. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals and set aside the Tribunal’s judgment.
Must read Judgement
THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, ACJ
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
Justice Athar Minallah
Civil Petitions No.928-L to 930-L of 2021
(Against the judgment dated 12.02.2021 of the
Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeals
No.1137, 1138 and 1139 of 2020)
The Secretary School Education,
Government of the Punjab,
Lahore etc.
…Petitioners in all cases
Versus
Riaz Ahmed
…Respondent in CP-928-L/2021
Muhammad Iqbal Khan
…Respondent in CP-929-L/2021
Abdul Salam
…Respondent in CP-930-L/2021
For the petitioners:
Barrister Mumtaz Ali, Additional Advocate
General,
Punjab a/w Akram, Litigation Officer
M. Zahid Aslam, DEO (SE), Khanewal
(in all cases)
For the respondents:
In person. (in all cases)
Date of hearing:
19 December 2023
ORDER
Athar Minallah, J. The Secretary Schools Education, Government of
Punjab ('petitioner'), has sought leave against the judgment dated
12.02.2021 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (‘Tribunal’) whereby
appeals filed by the respondents were allowed.
2.
The respondents were appointed on contract basis in the year 1995
against the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher' in BS-14. The
appointments were temporary and the terms and conditions were
expressly stated in the appointment orders. The extension of the
contractual terms was subject to satisfactory performance of the
appointees and regularization of services was dependent on the success of
the 'overall scheme'. It was further provided that necessary rules will be
framed to regularize the services. It is evident from the record placed
c.p.l.a.928_l_2021
2
before us that the respondents continued to serve on contract basis till
2004, when they were regularized along with more than two hundred
other similarly placed appointees vide order, dated 23.12.2004, issued by
the Education Department, Government of Punjab. It was expressly
stated in the order that the services were being regularized with effect
from the date when the appointees had joined the service. It was further
stated that upon regularization the 'Graduate Primary Teachers' would
attain the status of civil servants for the purposes of the Punjab Civil
Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules,1974 ('Rules of
1974') read with the Punjab Education Department (School Education)
Recruitment Rules, 1987 (‘Rules of 1987’). It was also provided that
they shall become eligible to the service benefits, including financial
benefits, which are admissible to a civil servant. The decision of the
Government of Punjab was followed by the issuance of a notification
addressed to the respective District Education Officers (DEOs). As already
noted, more than two hundred 'Graduate Primary Teachers' had benefited
from the regularization policy. However, not more than a few filed
representations after having been regularized for grant of 'selection grade'.
Their representations were considered but the claim was turned down
because the 'Graduate Primary Teachers' had not been declared eligible
for the grant of selection grade under any policy formulated by the
Government. The respondents preferred appeals before the Service
Tribunal, which were allowed vide the impugned judgment dated
12.02.2021, on the basis of Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pay
Revision Rules, 1977 (‘Rules of 1977’) read with the notification dated
25.08.1983 ('Notification dated 1983').
3.
We have heard some of the respondents who have appeared in
person. They could not show any policy of the Government which entitled
the 'Graduate Primary Teachers’ for the grant of 'selection grade'. They
c.p.l.a.928_l_2021
3
have solely relied on Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1977 and the notification
dated 1983. We have examined Rule 8 (3) of the Rules of 1977 which
provides that where, for a class of posts, apart from the ordinary pay
scale, a higher pay scale has been sanctioned for a percentage of the
number of said posts, then, in such an eventuality, the higher pay scale
shall be admissible to the holders of the post in BS-1 to BS-16, subject to
a minimum length of two years service in the ordinary pay scale of the
said posts. A higher pay scale was never sanctioned for the post of
'Graduate Primary Teacher' and, therefore, the aforementioned rule was
not attracted in the case of the respondents. We have also perused the
notification dated 1983 and it does not include the post of 'Graduate
Primary Teacher' for the purposes of grant of selection grade. In response
to our query, the respondents have candidly conceded that the
Government had not formulated any policy regarding the grant of
selection grade for the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher'.
4.
The grant of selection grade is not one of the modes of appointment
described under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 ('Act of 1974') nor
the Rules of 1974 or the Rules of 1977. The grant of selection grade is not
an appointment against a post in the mode of promotion. The expression
'promotion' is defined in the Act of 1974 as meaning appointment of a
civil servant to a higher post in the service or cadre to which the latter
belongs. Selection grade is thus not an appointment against a higher post
but is meant to extend financial benefits of a higher grade. The selection
grade is meant to financially compensate a civil servant who, despite
serving against a particular post for a considerably long period, does not
have the prospect of being promoted to a higher post. It is within the
exclusive domain of the Government to consider and decide whether a
civil servant is to be compensated for serving on a post without having
the prospects of being promoted to a higher post. It is an executive
c.p.l.a.928_l_2021
4
function performed through formulating a policy in the case of each post.
The grant of selection grade and its eligibility criterion is thus necessarily
governed under a policy which has to be formulated by the Government.
It is not one of the terms and conditions of the civil servant under the Act
of 1974 nor the Rules of 1974 or the Rules of 1977. A right, therefore,
does not accrue in favour of a civil servant to claim selection grade in the
absence of a specific policy that has been competently formulated by the
Government. No court or tribunal has the power and jurisdiction to
compel the Government to make a policy, or to interfere with a policy
which has been competently made in relation to a specified post. As a
corollary, the tribunal is bereft of jurisdiction to assume that a right
exists in favor of a civil servant for the grant of selection grade unless the
Government has formulated a policy. In the present case, the learned
tribunal has not appreciated that no policy was formulated by the
Government in the case of the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher' nor was
the said post covered under any policy relating to other specified posts.
5.
The learned tribunal has held that the withdrawal of the policy by
the Government in 2001, regarding the grant of selection grade relating to
posts other than the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher', did not affect the
right of the respondents since they were regularized from the date of
joining their service. As already discussed, the policy did not cover the
post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher' for the grant of selection grade. The
policy was withdrawn when the services of the respondents were not
regularized and their contractual terms and conditions did not entitle
them to claim selection grade. Even if it is assumed that the policy
withdrawn by the Government in 2001 had explicitly applied to the post
of 'Graduate Primary Teacher' even then the respondents would not have
been eligible because a right had not accrued during the subsistence of
the policy. The retrospective regularization, after withdrawal of the policy,
c.p.l.a.928_l_2021
5
could not create a right to claim a financial benefit which otherwise did
not exist at the relevant time i.e when the policy remained enforced.
Nonetheless, the policy withdrawn in 2001 did not include the post of
'Graduate Primary Teacher' for the grant of selection grade and, therefore,
no right had accrued in favour of the respondents. The Tribunal, in the
absence of a policy specifically covering the grant of selection grade for
the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher' was not competent to purportedly
create a right in favour of the respondents.
6.
For the foregoing reasons, these petitions are converted into
appeals and allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment.
ACJ.