Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. 182, 183 and 184(R) of 1984. decided on 28th July, 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 240‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 2‑‑Office Memorandum, dated 18‑8‑1983‑ Jurisdiction‑‑Pay scales admissible to stenographers‑‑Pay scales and induction of different categories of employees in a particular pay scale by office memorandum, dated 18‑8‑1963 issued under authority of Rules made under Civil Servants Act, 1973 which determined terms and conditions of persons in service‑‑Office Memorandum, held, was in nature of Rules which derived authority from Constitution and Civil Servants Act and was, therefore, statutory Rule‑‑Jurisdiction of Tribunal was limited to redress grievances affecting terms and conditions of persons in service and not to lay down terms and conditions as Tribunal had no power to legislate‑‑Mere fact that Rule made under Civil Servants Act was harsh did not empower Tribunal to annul it‑‑Case of appellant not relating to scope of grievances so as to attract jurisdiction of Tribunal‑‑Interference declined.

P L D 1983 S C 126 ref.

Muhammad Asghar Khan for Appellant.

Muhammad Amir Akbar Khan for the State.

Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1986.

‑This order shall also dispose of identical Appeals Nos. 183(R)/1984 and 184(R)/1984 filed respectively by Muhammad Yousuf and Zafar Muhammad.

2. All the three appellants were working as Audit and Accounts Assistant in Grade‑11 in the office of the Controller of Military Accounts under the Frontier Works Organisation, when the Scheme of Basic Pay Scales was introduced by Office Memorandum of 18‑8‑1963, effective from 1‑7‑1983. By this office memo, the Stenotypists and the stenograpphers, as a class, were placed in B‑12 and B‑15 respectively. Besides that, 25 per cent of Stenographers were placed in B‑16.

3. The appellants were not, however, given any higher Basic Pay Scale and remained in Grade‑11. They agitated that previously Stenotypists were in Grade‑8 and they have been placed in B‑12, and that Stenographers who held grade equivalent to that of the appellants were placed in B‑15. arbitrarily ignoring the fact that the duties and responsibilities of class of employees to which the appellants belonged were higher and they enjoyed the same scale of pay which was previously admissible to Stenographers. Their claim, in substance, was that they should also be placed in B‑15 and 25 per cent of their total strength should be placed in B‑16.

4. Having received no redress departmentally, they have approached this Tribunal by way of these appeals under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973).

5. The learned counsel for State has raised a preliminary objection that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the appellants. It is argued that fixation of pay scales and induction of different categories of employees in a particular pay scale is the prerogative of the rule‑making authorities and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal does not extend thereto. The arguments were heard of both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to P L D 1983 SC 126. In this case, the Punjab Service Tribunal had allowed Grade‑16 to the Readers of the High Court, though initially they were placed in Grade‑12. This was done because the Readers of the Board of Revenue were in Grade‑16 and the duties and responsibilities of the Readers of the High Court were not lesser than the Readers of the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Supreme Court did not interfere in the order of the Service Tribunal, and that it should be assumed that it agreed that in such matters the Tribunal has the jurisdiction. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court and we find that the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not discussed in that case and, in fact, it was not allowed to be raised, because the same was not taken up before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The question of jurisdiction, in these circumstances, stands undecided as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to Article 3 of the Constitution which provides that the State shall ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation and the gradual fulfilment of the fundamental principle, from each according to his ability to each according to his work. It was urged that whereas the appellants were performing arduous duties, they are not given salary according to their work and that the Stenographers and the Stenotypists whose duties were less important, had been given higher grade. According to the learned counsel, the impugned decision violates the provisions of Article 3 ibid, and, therefore, this Tribunal should interfere. We are afraid, Article 3 is of no help to the appellants. This is not a justifiable provision but lays down only the broad principles. Even otherwise, we cannot say that there is any exploitation. It is common knowledge that now‑a‑days, Stenotypists and Stenogrpahers are uncommon commodity and the Government Departments are feeling difficulties in attracting them to join the Government service, because in the private market, they get much higher salary. In any case, the crucial point to be determined is whether the Tribunal can intervene in this matter

7. Article 240 of the Constitution provides that the conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan shall be determined by or under the Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament which determines the terms and conditions is the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973). The rules made thereunder are the rules deemed to have been made thereunder determining the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Government. The Office Memorandum of 18‑8‑1983 is in the nature of rules which derives its authority from the Constitution and the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973). What we mean to impress upon is that the Office Memo. is issued under the Civil Servants Act, and as such is a statutory rule. The Tribunal has no power to legislate. If we interfere with the decision taken by the Government, we would be legislating ourselves. The mere fact that the rule made under the Civil Servants Act is harsh does not empower us to annul it. Our jurisdiction is limited to redress grievances affecting terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan. We have no jurisdiction to lay down the terms and conditions ourselves.

8. For the reasons stated above, we hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the appellants and dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

M.Y.H

Find a Lawyer Near You

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