Find a Lawyer

Case No. 18 (193) of 1980, decided on 4th January, 1981.

‑ S. 6 read with Pakistan Essential Services Rules, 1962, R. 3 (2)‑‑Personal hearing ‑ Authority under r. 3 (2) of Rules, held, not under obligation to give personal hearing to affected employees and has merely to take into considera tion their views before issuance of directions.

F. A. Toriq, Bar‑at‑Law for the Corporation.

Dates of hearing: 4th September ; 18th October and 30th November, 1980.

This is an application moved by the Controller of Administration and Personnel, Pakistan Television Corporation, Mr. S. H. Zubairi for the amendment of rules 4.14 and 5.3 of the P. T. V.‑Services Rules under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. In order to ascertain the views of the employees employed by the Pakistan Television Corporation, a Notice was published on 9th November, 1980, in ‑all the leading newspapers of the country. In response to this notice views of the employees have been received. In the meanwhile the management has moved an application seeking .permission to file a fresh application for amending rule 5.3 of the P. T. V. Services Rules. The request was granted and now only the proposed amended rule 4.14 is to be considered for approval.

2. Through the notice published in the leading newspapers I had also directed that those employees who want to be personally heard should submit their names. Almost all of them numbering about hundred employees have indicated their desire to be personally heard. The views obtained by the employees are cyclostyled in which the same objection has been repeated. If all the employees are heard, it will cause unneces sary delay in the disposal of the application. Moreover, it is not obliga tory on the Authority to give a personal hearing to the affected employees. All that is required under rule 3 (2) (a) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Rules, 1962 is to take into consideration the views of the em ployees before the issuance of Directions.

3. It has been contended by the applicant that in accordance with the existing rule 4.14 the employees in Groups 1 to 4 are given higher group, i. e. Group 2,3,4 or 5 when they reach the ceiling of their respective pay scales. This is being done as, an incentive to the employees. This facility is now proposed to be extended to employees in Group 5, 6 and 7 so that they can also get higher Groups when they reach the ceiling of their respective pay scale.

4. The proposed rule 4.14 reads as under:‑‑

"Employees originally placed in Pay Groups 1, 2; 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, when they reach the ceiling of their respective pay scales; will, after one year, be automatically given next higher pay groups 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively, provided they have earned satisfactory reports during the last 3 years. This process will, however, not be repeat ed. For example, an employee who is originally placed in pay Group 1, will, after one year of reaching the ceiling of the Pay scale of Pay Group 1, be placed in pay Group 2 but he will not automatically go to pay Group‑3, if and when he reaches the ceiling of Pay Group 2 Pay scale. The same will apply to employees in Pay Groups 2 to 7."

A perusal of rule 4.14 will show that at present the employees placed in pay Groups 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6 and 7 when they reach the ceiling of their respec tive pay scales, will after one year, be automatically given next higher pay group i. e., Pay Groups 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively. Previously, rule 4.14 was applicable to employees in Pay Groups 1 to 4 and the employees in the said pay group were entitled to automatic promotion after they reached their ceiling. Under the proposed Rule, the employee in Pay groups 5, 6 and 7 would also be entitled to be benefited by this facility. A condition has now been appended in the proposed rule that only those concerned employees who earn satisfactory reports during the last three years would be entitled to this facility. The employees have submitted their views. They have opposed the above condition of earning satisfactory reports in the, last three years to make them eligible for next promotion. After giving due consideration to the views of the employees on the above proposed rules, I am of the opinion that the condition placed to the proposed rule 4.14 is not unreasonable on the following grounds: ‑

(1) that the proposed rule is now open for the employees of high status in pay Group‑5, 6 and 7 and naturally the anxiety of the management in promoting only those employees who have a satis factory record of service is quite justified and logical;

(2) a proforma of annual confidential reports shows that an employee can receive the following kinds of reports

(1) Very good.

(2) Good.

(3) Average.

(4) Below average.

Mr. Zubairi, Controller Administration and Personnel submits that if an employee earns average report it will be deemed satisfactory. Being satisfied with the explanation offered by Mr. Zubairi on behalf of the management that if the concerned employee receives average reports he would be deemed to have earned satisfactory reports. I am of opinion that the proposed rule 4.14 would not act to the disadvantage of the employees. I, therefore, direct that the proposed rule 4.14 may be substituted in place of existing rule 4.14 of the P. T. V. Services Rule.

Directions accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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