Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS Respondent: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION through Secretary Education, Government of Pakistan, IslamabadHonorable Justice Riaz Ahmad KhanL.K. Sehraee,Malik Shaukat Nawaz and Sardar Shahid Hanif
2013 P L C (C.S.) 545
[Islamabad High Court]
Before Riaz Ahmad Khan, J
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
Versus
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION through Secretary Education, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others
Writ Petitions Nos.1508 to 1514 of 2010, decided on 18th February, 2013.
(a) Allama lqbal Open University Act (XXXIX of 1974)---
----S. 18---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199, 189, 25 & 4---Civil Service---Increments---Benefit of decision of Service Tribunal to the employees who were similarly placed but not party to proceedings---Petitioners sought benefit of judgment of Supreme Court and Service Tribunal that was given to their colleagues, who were similarly placed in relation to increments in salary---Contention of University authorities (employer) was that said benefit could not be extended to the petitioners as they were not party to proceedings either before the Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court---Validity---Once a decision was made by the Supreme Court, determining a question of law or enunciating a principle of law, the same was binding on all courts in Pakistan---Judgment of the Supreme Court becomes a guideline that had to be followed by everyone---When a person got benefit from the judgment of the Supreme Court, then all other similarly placed persons would become entitled to the same relief, irrespective of the fact as to whether they were party in the earlier litigation or not---If one benefit had been extended to the employee on basis of a judgment of the Service Tribunal, then refusal of the same benefit to other employees who were similarly placed, was violative of Art.4 and Art.25 of the Constitution---Petitioners, in circumstances, were entitled to the salary/increment accordingly---Constitutional petition was allowed.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 189---Decision of Supreme Court binding on other courts ----Once a decision was made by the Supreme Court, determining a question of law or enunciating a principle of law, the same was binding on all courts in Pakistan---Judgment of the Supreme Court becomes a guideline that has to be followed by everyone---When a person got benefit from the judgment of the Supreme Court, then all other similarly placed persons would become entitled to the same relief irrespective of the fact as to whether they were party in the earlier litigation or not.
(c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----Ss. 1(3) & 5 --- Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.4 & 25---Decision of Service Tribunal---Scope---If one benefit had been extended to the employee on basis of a judgment of the Service Tribunal, then refusal of the same benefit to other employees similarly placed was violative of Art.4 and Art.25 of the Constitution.
L.K. Sehraee for Petitioner.
Malik Shaukat Nawaz and Sardar Shahid Hanif for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th February, 2013.
JUDGMENT
RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J.--- This judgment is directed to dispose of instant writ petition as well as six other Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513 and 1514 of 2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners of all the seven writ petitions, are permanent employees of Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. This university had come into existence through Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974. Under Article 19 of the said Act, the Executive Council is the Executive Body of the University. In the year 1986, the Executive Body of the university granted two advance increments to those employees, who completed Master Degree in Educational Planning and Management (EPA). The said decision was notified vide Notification No. F.21-58/86-Reg dated 14-1-1987. The petitioners obtained degree of M.A. Educational Planning and Management and were accordingly granted two advance increments retrospectively w.e.f. 21-12-1986. Later on, the matter regarding two advance increments was placed before the Finance Committee and again before the Executive Council. The Executive Council confirmed its earlier decision and afresh notification dated 21-12-1993 was issued. The matter again came up before the External Audit Committee and it was held that the matter of two advance increments was not covered under the Federal Government Employees Rules and therefore, a Committee was constituted to scrutinize the cases of pay fixation of the employees. Accordingly, the two advance increments already granted on the basis of Master Degree in Educational Planning and Management were withdrawn and the pay was re-fixed. The Executive Council again confirmed its earlier decision in the year 1999 and a fresh notification was issued. One of the employees namely Muhammad Iqbal challenged the order of withdrawal of the two advance increments before learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The appeal was accepted and it was held that the university had full authority to determine terms and conditions and pay of its employees. The Federal Government had no authority to issue directions to the university regarding management of its affairs. Similarly, Finance Division had no authority to override decisions of the university. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through C.P. No.673 of 2004, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 11-10-2004. The amount deducted on account of withdrawal of the two advance increments were reimbursed to the said employee. The petitioners following the above said example, applied for refund of the deducted amount, granted on the basis of two advance increments and for the withdrawal of the order, by virtue of which the payment of two advance increments was stopped, but to no effect. The petitioners then filed departmental appeal, which was also not responded. The petitioners then approached the Federal Ombudsman, but the appeal was returned for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners thereafter, filed present writ petitions for implementations of judgment passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal on 6-2-2004 as well as judgment dated 11-10-2004 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' case had already been decided by learned Federal Service Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioners are entitled to the same benefit, which can not be denied to them.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners were not party before the learned Federal Service Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the earlier litigation and therefore, are not entitled to the same relief. It was further submitted that the External Audit Committee had raised objection in respect of payment of two advance increments and therefore, the two increments could not be paid to the petitioners. It was further submitted that the Federal Government had the authority to stop payment of two advance increments as the same was not covered by the Federal Government Rules.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the matter in issue has already been decided by the learned Federal Service Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgment dated 11-10-2004 held that:---
"It is an established fact that the terms and conditions of service regulated by the Government are not applicable to Allama Iqbal Open University because such terms and conditions are determined by the executive council thereof. They being the rule making authority have allowed two advance increments to the respondent which they maintain till this date to be valid. Learned counsel for the University stated at the bar that the University being independent in its affairs has rightly allowed two advance increments to the respondent."
As such the question regarding payment of two advance increments to the employees, who obtained degree of M.A. Educational Planning and Management stands settled. It is immaterial as to whether the petitioners were party in the earlier litigation or not. Once a decision is made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, determining a question of law or enunciating a principle of law, then the same is binding on all other Courts in Pakistan. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan becomes a guideline and that has to be followed by every one. As such when a person gets a benefit from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, then all other similarly placed persons would become entitled to the same relief, irrespective of the fact as to whether they were party in the earlier litigation or not. Even otherwise, if one benefit has been extended to the employee on the basis of judgment of learned Federal Service Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, then refusal of the same benefit to other employees similarly placed, is violative of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. In the circumstances, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the two advance increments, as already held by learned Federal Service Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. All the seven writ petitions are accordingly accepted.
KMZ/48/Isl. Petition allowed.