SCMR 2024

2024 PLP 538 (SCMR)

PESHAWAR and another — Appellants Versus Syed JEHANGIR SHAH and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2015, decided on 29th November, 2023.
Honorable Judges
Munib Akhtar, Shahid Waheed and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2024 PLP 538 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Munib Akhtar, Shahid Waheed and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
Parties PESHAWAR and another — Appellants Versus Syed JEHANGIR SHAH and others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 538 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 538 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munib Akhtar, Shahid Waheed and Musarrat Hilali, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 538 (SCMR) (PESHAWAR and another — Appellants Versus Syed JEHANGIR SHAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
  • Muhammad Asif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal against the judgment dated 24.04.2015 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.2095-P of 2008)

Art. 25

Civil service

Employees of Solicitor Office, Law Department, Peshawar ('the respondents')

Special allowance and utility allowance, denial of

Discrimination

Two allowances in question were also drawn by the respondents but later payment of such allowances was discontinued by the Government on the ground that the employees of the Solicitor Office were not part of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, not entitled for such allowances

Legality

High Court rightly allowed said allowances to the respondent by holding that that the classification so made by the Government qua granting of said two allowances to specified employees while denying the same to other employees who were also posted inside the walled premises of the Civil Secretariat, could not be termed as reasonable and amounted to offend the principle of equity before the law

High Court correctly noted that the office of the Solicitor having a separate entity in the Law Department was situated within the premises of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, the employees of the Solicitor Office were similarly placed and were entitled to the grant of special allowance and utility allowance

Counsel for the Provincial Government could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the High Court, which was maintained

Resultantly, appeal was dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

MUSARRAT HILALI, J.

Through this appeal, the Appellant-Department has assailed the judgment dated 23.04.2015 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.2095-P of 2008, by which the Respondents were granted special allowance and utility allowance.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents while serving in the Solicitor Office, Law Department, Peshawar had been receiving special allowance @ 20% and utility allowance 10% of their basic pay from February, 2008 but such allowances were discontinued from July, 2008 on the ground that the employees of the Solicitor Office are not part of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, they are not entitled for such allowances and recovery of the paid allowances was started. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. Let us have a look at the record which shows that in the year 1995 the Solicitor office was made part of the Law Department of NWFP Civil Secretariat ('the Civil Secretariat') through a Notification dated 26.07.1995 which was issued in pursuance of a Summary approved by the then Chief Minister, NWFP. In February 2008, Finance Department, Government of NWFP ('the Government') issued two letters, one granting special allowance @ 20% and the other granting 10% utility allowance to the officers and officials of the Civil Secretariat, Chief Minister's Secretariat and Governor's House/Secretariat, with effect from 1st February, 2008. By way of an amendment, the Government through Finance Department's letter dated 03.03.2008, also extended applicability of special allowance to all those employees who were (i) on deputation to Civil Secretariat (ii) the employees of Civil Secretariat who were posted outside Civil Secretariat and (iii) the government servants deputed from other departments who do not belong to Secretariat Service but were working in the Secretariat. The above allowances were also drawn by the Respondents but later payment of such allowances was discontinued on the ground that the employees of the Solicitor office were not part of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, not entitled for such allowances. The Government kept on denying said monetary benefit to the Respondents on one pretext or the other, which was ultimately granted by the High Court in Writ Petition No.2095-P of 2008. The High Court, while allowing the writ petition held that as per Article 25 of the Constitution all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of law but the State is not prohibited to treat its citizens on the basis of a reasonable classification and by referring the case of I.A. Sherwani observed that the classification so made by the Government qua granting of said two allowances to specified employees while denying the same to other employees who are also posted inside the walled premises of the Civil Secretariat, cannot be termed as reasonable and amounts to offend the principle of equity before the law. The High Court noted that the office of the Solicitor having a separate entity in the Law Department is situated within the premises of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, the employees of the Solicitor office are similarly placed and are entitled to the grant of special allowance and utility allowance. The learned counsel for the Appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment, which is maintained. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. MWA/S-4/SC Appeal dismissed.