Ombudsman decision on Shortfall Increments to SSTs dt 06.12.2005
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Shortfall Increments
Name of Investigating Officer: Ch. Salamat Ali.
COMPLAINT
Ms. Yasmin Kausar, SST, Govt. Girls Model High School, Satellite Town, Gujranwala has stated that she passed M.Ed. Examination in 2000. She was granted three advance increments on the basis of said qualifications by the DPI (SE), Punjab, Lahore vide order No. 6402/Admn.11(2), dated 26.3.2002. However, the District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala has given her one increment instead of three.She has submitted a number of applications to D.A.O. Gujranwala but they have not granted him the remaining two advance increments. It has been requested that a direction be issued to D.A.O, Gujranwala for granting her three advance increments w.e.f. 13.3.2000.
REPORT OF THE AGENCY
2. D.A.O. Gujranwala has reported that the complainant drew more advance increments on account of higher qualification of M.A. in her capacity of EST (non-gaze-ted, and later on two ‘shortfall’ increments in the capacity of SST w.e.f. 9.1.1999. The complainant’s pay was revised from Rs.4111/- to Rs.4505/- Later on a reference bearing No. PR/Coord/Adv.increts-926, date 19.5.2000 was received from A.G. Punjab, Lahore wherein it was clarified that there was no provision in the rules to allow such shortfall increment and accordingly complainant’s pay after reducing/deducting two shortfall increments vide No. 987, dated 1.8.2000 is revised. However, she was allowed three advance increments of M Ed. w.e.f. 13.3.2000. The complainant’s case has been dealt with according to rules and directions of A.G. Punjab, Lahore, it has been asserted.
3. The complainant has stated that she was allowed two increments as ‘shortfall’ in the capacity of SST in the year 1999 w.e.f. 4/2002. Deduction of two shortfall increments from her pay has been made unilaterally without hearing her. It has been stated that the shortfall increments were protected before 3.9.2003 and stated that the increments should have been protected like others. D.A.O., Gujranwala should, therefore, either protect the two advance increments allowed to her as ‘shortfall’ or grant three advance increment for her M.A. qualification in SST grade w.e.f. 9.1.1999.
4. The complainant has also submitted an application stating therein that a number of SSTs are still drawing two “shortfall” increments in collusion with the D.A.O., Gujranwala. She has stated that five teachers of Qila Dedar Singh were granted promotion as SST w.e.f. 21.5.99 and four of them namely Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Akram, SST of Govt. High School, Qila Dedar Singh and Zafar Ahmad Zafar, SST, of Govt. High School Girja Virkan and Muhammad S. Aafique Khan, SST, Government High School Chapal Khan, Gujranwala are still drawing two shortfall increments.
REPLY TO REJOINDER AND THE APPLICATION OF THE COMPLAINANT:
5. The D.A.O. has reported that ‘shortfall’ increments were wrongly allowed due to oversight to various teachers including the teachers mentioned in the complainant’s application and that the same have been withdrawn and revised pay slips issued and recovery of overpayment would be started w.e.f. 12/2005. This ongoing process will continue till other SSTs to whom shortfall increments were wrongly allowed are withdrawn accordingly. He has sent revised pay slips of 16 SSTs, whose pay has been revised after deducting two advance increments which were given to them as ‘shortfall.’
HEARING PROCEEDINGS:
6. No one represented the complainant at joint hearing despite notice. Also, no one represented the D.A.O. Gujranwala despite notice.
FINDINGS:
7. The complainant was granted one advance increment for M.A. qualification as EST (non-gaze-ted) by D.A.O. Gujranwala. On her promotion as SST (gaze-ted), she was further allowed two advance increments as shortfall w.e.f. 9.1.99 on the basis of the same qualification of M.A. in the capacity of SST.
8. DPI (SE), Punjab, Lahore vide his office order No. 6402/Admn-II(2), dated 26.3.2002 granted three advance increments to the complainant on her acquiring higher qualification of M.Ed. w.e.f. 13.3.2000. D.A.O., Gujranwala, however, while issuing pay slip to her allowed only one advance increment observing that the two shortfall advance increments which were earlier granted to her w.e.f. 9.1.1999 in the capacity of SST were wrongly given to her as she had already been given.
The advance increment for acquiring the qualification of M.A. as EST. This was done in pursuance of A.G. Punjab, Lahore letter No. PR/Coord/Adv-increments/926, dated 9.5.2000 in which it was clarified that grant of advance increment for possessing higher qualification over and above the prescribed qualification in the recruitment rules for the post, is a one-time benefit and must not accrue again and again each time one changes the cadre. This benefit is available to a civil servant from the date the higher qualification is acquired i.e. from the date of declaration of the result.
9. The complainant who had already availed of the benefit of one advance increment for M.A. qualification in the capacity of EST was not entitled to get the benefit of two more advance increments as “shortfall” for the qualification of M.A. on her change of cadre i.e. on promotion as SST (gaze–ted). The two advance increments given as “shortfall” to the complainant in such circumstances were rightly withdrawn and adjusted by the D.A.O. while giving her three advance increments for possessing M.Ed. qualification as SST. Thus, in this view of the matter, the complainant has not been able to establish any maladministration against the D.A.O. to her extent.
10. The complainant in her rejoinder as also in her application dated 08.11.2005 has contended that she has not been dealt alike some other SSTs who are still drawing two advance increments as shortfall on their promotion as SST for possessing higher qualification in the capacity as EST (non-gaze-ted) in collusion with D.A.O., Gujranwala. This fact stands established from the reports dated 23.11.2005 and 6.12.2005 submitted by D.A.O., Gujranwala in this office.
11. The matter of granting two increments as “shortfall” to the SSTs for possessing higher qualification in the capacity of EST (non-gaze-ted) was clarified to D.A.O., Gujranwala by A.G. Punjab, Lahore vide his letter No. PR/Coord/Adv-increments/26, dated 9.5.2000. There was, thus, no justification with the D.A.O. to allow the drawl of “shortfall” increments by SSTs after the said letter.
12. Recoveries of teachers in this category were waived off through a notification issued by the F.D. vide No. FD. PR-12-1/2003 dated 10.2.2003 which was endorsed by the A.G. Punjab, Lahore to all concerned vide No. TM-I/T-I/A12-2-037/781, dated 27.2.2003. The two shortfall increments, thus, could not be allowed to be drawn by any SST after the abovementioned Notification of F.D. dated 10.2.2003. The drawl of shortfall increments by the SSTs after F.D. notification dated 10.2.2003 is illegal. D.A.O., Gujranwala, however, knowing all this allowed them to draw the same. He only revised the salary of some of the SSTs on 21.11.2005 and 5.12.2005 when he was issued a notice from this office to clarify the position. He in this way has caused huge financial loss to the government exchequer. D.A.O., Gujranwala on the face of the record, thus, appears to be responsible for “maladministration” as defined in sub-clause (d) of clause (ii) and clause (ii) of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997 due to his inaction.
13. In view of the above Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Finance Department/A.G. Punjab, Lahore are directed to: –
i) call the explanation of D.A.O. Gujranwala for not revising the salary of SSTs who were drawing two “shortfall” increments illegally after F.D. notification No. FD.PR-12-1/2003 dated 10.2.2003 and endorsed to all concerned by the A.G. Punjab, Lahore vide his endorsement dated 27.2.2003 and allowing them to draw the same continuously without any objection, thereby causing huge financial loss to government exchequer and take action against him under the relevant law;
ii) direct all the D.A.Os. in the Province of Punjab as also the audit officers at the Headquarter Office at Lahore to scrutinize the record of SSTs and revise the salary of all such SSTs who are still drawing two “shortfall” increments illegally and take action against the officers/staff responsible for that under the relevant law/rules; and
iii) report compliance of these findings by 16.2.2006 or submit reasons for not doing so in terms of section 11(2) of the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997.
14. Attention of Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Finance Department/A.G. Punjab, Lahore is hereby drawn to subsection (5) of section 11 of the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997 which is reproduced below:
“11(5). If the Agency concerned does not comply with the recommendations of the Ombudsman or does not give reasons to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman for non-compliance, it shall be treated as ‘Defiance of Recommendations’ and shall be dealt with as hereinafter provided.”
15. Parties be informed.
