Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and others VS Respondent: Syed Irshad Ali Abid
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Umar Ata Bandial, Munib Akhtar Title:The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and others vs
Syed Irshad Ali Abid Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 1470 of 2015 Date of Judgment:2018-11-29 Reported As: 2021 PLC (C.S.) 277, 2020 SCMR 2064 Result: Appeal allowed Judgment ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The respondent secured his LL.B degree in the year 2002 on the basis of a scheme encouraging higher education introduced by the Railway Authorities in the year 1996. The respondent claimed four advance increments on account of having secured the afore-mentioned degree. The appellant-employer of the respondent contested the relief prayed on the ground that the incentive schemes mentioned above were discontinued by the competent Railway authorities vide notification dated 13.9.2001. Paragraph 10 of the said notification provides as follows: "10. Advance increments: The existing scheme of advance increments is discontinued w.e.f. 1.12.2001. A fresh scheme, if any, will be introduced in due course." 3.(sic.) The learned Tribunal has held that the respondent is entitled to the relief prayed for two reasons; firstly, in similar cases the relief was granted in the year 2011 after the closure of the scheme and secondly, the appellant- authorities had conceded and granted the right to such relief in the case of several similarly placed persons. Consequently, denial of the relief to the respondent would constitute discrimination. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the persons who were granted relief by the Federal Service Tribunal had obtained their higher qualification prior to the year 2001, consequently, they enjoyed some entitlement which is given judicial recognition; in the second case decided by the learned Federal Service Tribunal on 06.9.2010 the judgment was given ex parte against the appellant. 'Furthermore, neither of the said orders deal with the withdrawal of the incentive vide notification dated 13.9.2001. When asked how the respondent had a right to claim the said relief in the year 2012 when he filed his appeal before the learned Federal Service Tribunal although the benefit scheme had been withdrawn in the year 2001, learned counsel submits that there is an assurance that an alternative scheme shall be brought in due course. That has not happened. There is no ground for considering
---
## Page 2
that any promissory estoppel has arisen in this case because the scheme was withdrawn before the respondent secured his higher qualification in the year 2002. Consequently, there was no vested right in the respondent to be granted the benefit of abolished scheme. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24.8.2015 by the learned Federal Service Tribunal is set aside.