Find a Lawyer

(From the judgment‑of the Punjab Service Tribunal, 18‑3‑1982 passed in Case No. 105/965 of 1981).

(From the judgment, dated 3‑5‑1984 of the Punjab Service Tribunal passed in Case No. 279/391 of 1983).

Civil Petition No. 446 of 1982, 150, 432 and 780 of 1984, decided on 22nd August, 1984.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑Punjab Government Notification No. 1‑13/79‑SOS(IV), dated 27‑1‑1983‑‑Civil service‑‑Entry of 15 per cent. of Cadre of Civil Judges/District and Sessions Judges in next higher National Pay Scale‑ Bound to open up further chances of their promotion‑‑Whether entry to be allowed automatically on basis of seniority or after due consideration of their suitability‑‑Leave granted to consider said question of law of public importance,‑‑

Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Malik Azam Rasool, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Respondent in person.

Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Civil Petition No. 432 of 1984

Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1984.

Under the Pay Revision Rules, 1973, 15 per cent of the cadre of Civil Judges in N.P.S.‑17 is to be in N.P.S.‑18 while a similar percentage of the cadre of District and Sessions Judges in N.P.S.‑19 is to be in N.P.S.‑20. A question arose before the Punjab Service Tribunal in the respondents' appeals whether the entry in N.P.S.‑18 of the Civil Judges and in N.P.S.‑20 of the District and Sessions Judges in the 15 per cent quota can be allowed automatically on the basis of seniority or after due consideration of the fitness of the incumbents concerned. The Tribunal held, in the case of respondent Mumtaz Hussain Malik, that: ‑ '

"We do not find any provision in the said Rules which anywhere bars the appellant to enjoy N.P.S‑18 made effective from 1‑3‑1972, on the ground of 15% of the cadre of Civil Judges. The grant of N . P . S . ‑18 on the basis of 15% quota is not a promotion and this fact has been re‑affirmed by the respondent‑Government itself in para. 4 of Notification No. 1‑13/79‑SOS (IV), dated 27‑1‑1983."

This notification, dated 27‑1‑1983, no doubt, towards the end says that "the grant of N.P.S.‑18 to a specified number of Civil Judges in Grade 17 is not promotion and the case does not fall within the purview of Provincial Selection Board"; but it is mentioned in the same notification that the cases of certain Civil Judges had been ignored. In an earlier notification, dated 8‑10‑1980 two Civil Judges had similarly been ignored on account of unsatisfactory‑ record. Mr. Khalil Ramdey, appearing for the petitioner/ Government, urges that the entry from N.P.S.‑17 to N.P S.‑18 of Civil Judges and from N.P.S.‑19 to N.P.S.‑20 of District and Sessions Judges is not automatic and without consideration of their suitability, because their entry into the higher scale is bound to open up further chances of promotion to them.

2. The question raised thus does involve a substantial question of law of public importance, requiring consideration by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in these petitions, which shall be made ready and fixed for hearing before the end of the current year. Meanwhile, the judgment of the Tribunal shall remain suspended.

M. I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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