Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 198 of 1984, decided on 9th June, 1985.

---Art. 9--Punjab Local Government Ordinance (V1 of 1979), S:46- Ea,ployees of local bodies- Authority issuing notification for granting of new pay scales to employees from next financial year, which' by notification was later suspended and finally withdrawn by another notification--All notifications issued by Secretary Local Government, held, were issued by a competent authority--Question whether withdrawal of notification was made by authority of his own violation or on advice of some other department, held further, ww5 irrelevant to judge competent of authority--Employees were not permitted to go behind orders passed by authority, to set up a plea of such orders being passed without lawful authority.

--Art. 9--Principle of locus poenitentiae--Authority issuing notification for grant of new pay scale from next financial year and subsequently, suspending and withdrawing same by separate notification--Contention that notification being communicated to local councils and employees, was a decisive step and thus cannot be withdrawn--Held, grant of new pay scale was to. be effective from coming financial year and before start of said financial year it -was withdrawn; since no decisive step was taken in pursuance of notification, principle of locus poenitentiae was not applicable--Withdrawal of notification, therefore, was perfectly in order. (Locus poenitentiae).

Ch. Hamid-ud-Din with Syed A1-Mustafa Imran for Petitioners.

Akhtar Shabbir, A.A.-G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9th June, 1985.

The petitioners, 149 in number, are Sanitary Inspectors working in different Local Councils: On 2-5-1983 the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Local Government. Department by a notification directed that the Sanitary Inspectors be granted N.P.S. 10 from, the next financial year. On 21-6-1983 this notification -was suspended-and on 29-9-1983 this notification was finally withdrawn. The petitioners challenged the orders of the Secretary to the Government of Punjab of 29-9-1983 on the ground that these orders have been passed by the Secretary Local Government Department on the advice of the Secretary Finance Department and, therefore, are of no legal effect. It is. also contended that the notification had been communicated to the Local Councils, and also to the petitioners, therefore, a decisive step has .been taken and it cannot be withdrawn on the principle of locus poenitentiae.

2. There is no denying the fact that the Government of. Punjab in the present case means Government of the Punjab in the Local Government. Department. The notification of 2-5-1983 granting N.P.S. 10 and notification of 21-6 1983 suspending the notification and the notification of 29-9-1983 withdrawing the notification have all been issued by the Secretary Local Government Department. The orders, therefore, were obviously passed by the competent authority. Whether the withdrawal of the notification was made by the Secretary. Local Government A Department of his own volition or on the advice of the Finance Department is irrelevant to judge the competence of the authority. The petitioners cannot be permitted to go behind the orders passed by the Secretary Local Government Department in order to set up a. plea that the orders were passed without lawful authority by the Secretary Local Government Department.

3. As regards the withdrawal of notification under the principle of locus poenitentiae it is essential to see whether any decisive step had been taken under the notification before it was withdrawn. The notification of 2-5-1983 granted N.P.S. 10 to the Sanitary inspectors from the "next financial year". The notification, therefore was to be effective from 1-7-198.1 but before this notification could be given effect to it was suspended on 21-6-1983 and subsequently withdrawn on 29-9--1983. It is clear that no decisive step had been taken in pursuance of the notification of 2-5-1983 before it was suspended and finally withdrawn. The orders of the Government of suspending and then withdrawing the notification of 2-5-1983 are, therefore, perfectly in order. The writ petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

H . A . K .

Find a Lawyer Near You

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