Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ANWAR BEG, S.E.T. VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.PHonorable Justice SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUIMuhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehar Khan Malik,Nemo
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C.S.) 172
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Sh. Riaz Ahmad, JJ
ANWAR BEG, S.E.T. and 2 others
versus
GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary Education, N.‑W.F.P.U and 2 others
450 to 452 of 1995, decided on 27th November, 1995.
(On appeal from the judgment of the N.‑W.F.P., Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 6‑7‑1995 passed in Appeals Nos. 457, 459 and 456 respectively. (Appeal No. 28/95).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Appointment as Senior English Teachers in BPS‑15‑‑‑Civil servants, thereafter improved their educational qualifications and also earned experience of teaching for more than 5 years as Senior English Teachers (Science)‑‑‑Post of civil servants was subsequently upgraded to BPS‑16 in 1991 and pay scale of civil servants was also revised‑‑‑Civil servants' claim for grant of graded pay from dates they acquired requisite qualification as well as for regularisation of their appointments as Senior English Teachers‑‑ Service Tribunal allowed civil servants' appeals partly and directed concerned department to award graded pay from dates petitioners acquired requisite qualification with arrears, if any‑‑‑Service Tribunal, however, neither adverted to nor decided other prayer in appeals with regard to regularisation of appointments of civil servants as Senior English Teachers‑‑ Effect‑‑‑Civil servants while seeking leave to appeal contended that failure of Service Tribunal to decide said prayer amounted to refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in such Tribunal for petitioners had no other remedy available to them under law against action of departmental authority and that civil servants were entitled to be regularised in their posts‑‑‑Such contention raised by petitioners required examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention raised.
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehar Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27th November, 1995.
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑This order will govern disposal of abovementioned three petitions in which identical question of law and facts are involved.
The petitioners in the abovementioned petitions were appointed as S.E.T. (Science) in BPS‑15 on fixed pay on different dates in the year 1987. The petitioners thereafter improved their educational qualification and also earned experience of teaching for more' than five years as S.E.T. (Science). Subsequently the post of S.E.T. (Science) was upgraded to BPS‑r6 in 1991 and pay scales of petitioners were also revised. The petitioners submitted departmental appeal praying for grant of graded pay from the dates they acquired requisite qualification as well as for regularisation of their appointments as S.E.T. (Science). After waiting for a period of 90 days the petitioners filed appeals before the Service Tribunal in which they trade the following prayer:‑‑ .
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the petitioners may very kindly be regularised and may also be awarded graded/running pay from the date of appointment with other benefits."
The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the appeals partly and directed the department to award graded pay 'from the dates the petitioners acquired requisite qualification, i.e. B.Ed. for the post of S.E.T. with arrears if any from that date. However, the learned Tribunal neither adverted to nor decided the other prayer in the appeals with regard to regularisation of the appointments of the petitioners as S.E.T. (Science).
In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the failure of the learned Tribunal to decide the above prayer amounted to refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal, as the petitioners have no other remedy available to them under the law against the action of departmental authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the provisions of section 3 of Act I of 1988 petitioners were entitled to be regularised in their posts. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.
A.A./A‑1415/S Leave granted.