2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. Syed ABUL HASSAN NAJMEE Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. Syed ABUL HASSAN NAJMEE Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Ordinance (II of 1991)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Ordinance (II of 1991)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. Syed ABUL HASSAN NAJMEE Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Anwar Ghumman, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Talib Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ms. Fowzi Zafar, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18‑12‑1998 passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal at Lahore High Court, Lahore in Service Appeal No.7 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Government of Punjab Order No.E‑II.23‑6/85, dated, 11/17‑2‑1993 and Finance Department Circular No.FD‑SRI‑9‑3/86, dated, 20‑7‑1988‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Special allowances for persons having qualified as L.L.M. and Ph.D ‑‑‑Civil servant possessed L.L.M. degree and also qualified his Ph.D ‑‑‑Claim of the civil servant was that special allowance for L.L.M. be granted in addition to Ph.D. allowance‑‑‑Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal refused to grant the claim of the civil servant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No rule or policy decision of the Government existed which entitled the civil servant to the special allowance for L.L.M. degree in addition to Ph.D. allowance‑‑‑By placing a rider by Government of Punjab Order No.E‑II.23‑6/85 dated, 11/17‑2‑1993, the Government had neutralized its earlier letter dated 20‑9‑1990‑‑‑View taken by the Tribunal being reasonable and unexceptionable, Supreme Court declined to interfere with the same‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
M. Anwar Ghumman, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Talib Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ms. Fowzi Zafar, A.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th May, 2002. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑‑The petitioner seeks the grant of leave from the judgment dated 18‑12‑1998 passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal at Lahore High Court, Lahore in Service Appeal No.7 of 1993.
2. The petitioner, a Member of the former Provincial Civil Services (Judicial Branch), is at present posted as Secretary, Provincial Assembly of the Punjab. The petitioner after obtaining the L.L.M. Degree in 1985 also qualified his Ph.D. (Constitutional Law) in 1992. The petitioner was sanctioned special allowance @ 50% per month of the Ph.D. allowance on the basis of L.L.M. Degree in terms of a circular letter dated 20‑9‑1990 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department. Subsequently he was allowed Ph.D. allowance at the rate of Rs.1500 per month, with effect from 22‑11‑1992, by the Government of the Punjab vide Order No. E‑II.23‑6/85 dated. 11/17 February, 1993 read with Finance Departments' Circular letter No.FD‑SRI‑9‑3/86, dated 20‑7‑1988 with a further rider that the qualification allowance already sanctioned in his favour would cease to be admissible. His representation for the grant of special allowance for L.L.M. in addition to the Ph.D. allowance was dismissed by the Government vide letter dated 21‑8‑1993. The service appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the impugned order of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the qualifications of L.L.M. and Ph.D. were distinct and independent and there was no question of their amalgamation. The petitioner was entitled to the Ph.D. allowance in addition to the special allowance for his L.L.M. Degree.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We find that there is no rule or policy decision of the Government which entitles the petitioner to the special allowance for L.L.M. degree in addition to the Ph.D. allowance. By placing a rider by circular letter dated 11‑2‑1993 the Government seems to have neutralized its earlier‑letter dated 20‑9‑1990. The view taken by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal is reasonable and unexceptionable in the facts and circumstances. This is not a lit case for grant of leave.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./A‑232/S Petition dismissed.