Find a Lawyer

Chief Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Lahore

Cases Nos. 208/1061, 469/1267 of 1981, 23/1479 and 24/1480 of 1982, decided on 11th May, 1982.

---S. 16--Appellants ignored for grant of N.P.S. 18 despite notification of promotion in that scale--Representations of appellants still under consideration--Tribunal agreed with advice of Finance Department in which it asked Administrative authorities to re-examine whole case and allow benefit to those eligible-- Appellants, held, entitled to said scale for period they held respective posts.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellants. H.R. Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

Messrs Sh. Muzaffar Hussain, Mehr Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Mir Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Afzal Sohail, have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which they have impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, as respondent.

2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that their appeals be accepted and respondent be directed to grant them N.P.S.-18 from 1-3-1972 to 9-4-1975.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, vide Notification, dated 27-10-1975 issued by Lahore High Court, the Chief Justice as well as the Judges of the High Court were pleased to promote them in N.P.S.-18 w.e.f. 1-3-1972 to 9-4-1975. However, respondent did not agree to implement the said notification and decline to give them N.P.S.-18 from the date so mentioned in the notification. Hence these appeals. Counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by Raja Kalimullah, Under Secretary, S&GAID and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that while awarding N.P.S.-18 the case of the appellants has not been considered whereas their juniors have been granted this scale. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the appellants have been deprived of their legitimate right against all the canons of justice, equity and good conscious, whereas the appellants were confirmed officers and had been holding the charge of Administrative/ Senior Civil Judges from March, 1972 to 25-9-1975, when they were promoted Additional District and Sessions Judges. It was further urged that although the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the Lahore High Court had promoted the appellants, vide notification so mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment yet the respondent has declined to implement the same. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments so filed by the respondent through Deputy Secretary of his Department and has submitted that although the Notification, dated 24-11-1979, N.P.S.-18 was granted to Civil Judge but the same was with a rider clause which imposed a limit of 15 of the total strength for this benefit. According to the learned D.A. the appellants case did not fall within the limits, therefore, the respondent was justified to decline them of the said benefit as claimed by them. It was further submitted that under revised N.P.S. of 1977 the ,post of Administrative Civil Judge did not exist and 15 of the total strength was to be earmarked in N.P.S.-18 for purposes of pay which is not promotion. However, it was conceded that the representations of the appellants were under consideration according to para. 7 of the para-wise comments.

5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so raised before us by the parties and find that the representations of the appellants which were under consideration with the respondent, were referred to Finance Department for their advice. The Finance Department, vide their U .O. No. FD-SRI-3-34/81, dated 21-9-1981, addressed to the Under Secretary, S-IV, S&GAD, has observed as' under:-

"A.D. in its note has stated that 'he alongwith other officers (from Serial No. 70-79) have been promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judges from the dates prior to their eligibility for grant of N.P.S.-18 on the basis of their seniority. As such they need not be considered for the grant of N.P.S.-18. This statement does not appear to be correct because these officers were promoted Additional District and Sessions Judges in September, 1975, while those promoted against 15 quota who were obviously their juniors were given N.P.S.-18 with effect from 1-3-1972 with the result that those senior officers have suffered in matter of pay fixation. It was not the intention of the Government to eliminate those who had already been promoted to Grade-18 from a subsequent date. If the S&GAD insists that it did not notify them in N.P.S.-l8 following notification, dated 1973, then it should not by the same argument leave them out while giving the benefit of notification, dated 1976. The S&GAD should consider the matter as it stood on 1-3-1972 and promote all those who came within the 15 quota and cannot be termed as having not gained eligibility, for promotion to the 15% posts.

The SAGAD is, therefore, requested to re-examine the whole case and allow the benefit of 15 quota in N.P.S.-18 on the crucial date to the officers who were eligible for it."

6. We have carefully perused the contents of this U.0. and are of the considered opinion that the advice so tendered is based on cogent reasons with which we are in full agreement. This advice is fully in consonance with the provision of section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 which lays down that the person appointed to the post shall be eligible to the pays etc. attached to that post. According to Pay Revision Rules as notified, vide Notification No. (sic) the post of Administrative Civil Judge was placed in N.P.S.-18, therefore, the case of the appellants would be governed under the same and they would be entitled to the benefits so claimed by them as they have been holding these posts during the period.

7. In view of the above, we accept the appeals of the appellants agreeing with Finance Department U.0. No. FD-SRI-3-34/81, dated 21-9-1981 as well as relying on section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellants would be entitled to N.P.S.-18 for the period during which they held the post of Administrative/ Senior Civil Judge as notified in the High Court's Notification, dated 27-10-1976, less already drawn by them. However, there will be no order as to costs.

M.I. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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