Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 270/369 of 1985.
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Limitation‑‑Order passed by Governor not open to departmental appeal‑‑Limitation for appeal before Tribunal starts from date of order.
‑‑‑ Special pay granted to employees of T.B. Sanatorium directly coming in contact with patients‑‑Held: Rightly refused to those not in direct contact with patients.
Manzoor Ahmed Rana for Appellants. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
---‑‑Muhammad Riaz Abbasi and 69 others, as per memo. of appeal, all employees of Sh. Muhammad Hussain Samli Sanatorium, Murree, District Rawalpindi, have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore, and the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By‑ virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the Notification No. SO (DEV. II)4‑4i84, elated 12‑3‑‑1935. in so far as it relates to the appellants, be set aside and respondent be directed to pay special pay/ risk allowance to the appellant as well.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Government vide its Notification, dated 19‑3‑1984, allowed special pay to the following categories of staff of S. Muhammad Hussain Government T.B. Sanatorium Samli, District Rawalpindi:‑
(1) Staff Nurse (2) Laboratory Technician.
(3) Radiographer (4) Male Nurse
(5) Dark Room Assistant. (6) Laboratory Assistant.
(7) Dispensary Attendant and (8) Laboratory Attendant.
Laboratory Attendant.
(9) X‑Ray Attendant (10) Ward Bearer.
(11) Sweeper.
However, the remaining staff was left out as according to Government decision the only persons who directly come in contact with T.B. patients of Samli Sanatorium, were those so mentioned in the said notification. However, the appellants aggrieved against this notification filed representation to the Secretary Health on the strength of the note of Governor's Inspection Team; which recommended that the appellants be also included in the said notification and be allowed special pay as allowed to the staff so mentioned above. This representation was rejected on 12‑3‑1985, on the advice of the Finance Department, which regretted its inability to agree to the said proposal of the Governor's Inspection Team. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the department and have perused the record of this case including the advice of the Finance Department, carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it would be an act of discrimination on the part of the Government to exclude the present appellants from the said concession when they were also exposed to life risk alongwith the persons earlier granted such relief, therefore, the recommendations of the Governor's Inspection Team were justified and should have been accepted.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has resisted the appeal on the following grounds:‑
(1) Firstly the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred as no appeal was filed by the appellant against the notification so issued by the Government against which no further appeal was permissible and they were required to file this appeal straightaway before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
(2) That the grant of concession to the categories mentioned in the notification was based on the fact that said staff was required to come in contact with‑ the T.B. patients whereas the present appellants are not exposed to said contact.
It has been further submitted that T.B. being no longer a contagious disease, even the earlier concession was not justified and if the appellants are allowed this concession, this will open a pandora box as other hospitals in the Province have also T.B. Wards and their employees will also come forward with the same demand.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the objection taken by the learned District Attorney with regard to the limitation, it is valid as it is settled law that no appeal lies against the order of Governor of Punjab and once the said order has been passed the only course left open to the appellants was to file appeal before this Tribunal In this manner, we have no hesitation to hold that the appeal is hit by law of limitation as the same has been filed, after a period of one year.
8. With regard to the merits of the case, we find that the category of the appellants is such which hardly come in contact directly with the T.B. patients at Samli Sanatorium, therefore, their plea that they would also be exposed to the said risk is unfounded.
9. The result is we do not find any justification in this appeal, which is dismissed both as time‑barred as well as without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.
A.E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer