2008 PLP 766 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD IKRAM — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, FAISALABAD through Chairman and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 766 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IKRAM — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, FAISALABAD through Chairman and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 766 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 766 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 766 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD IKRAM — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, FAISALABAD through Chairman and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner.
- Dr. M. Mohy-ud-Din Qazi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Scope
Statutory bodies were amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction
Constitution was the supreme law and provisions of Art.199 of the Constitution could be invoked against a "person"
No clog or bar existed in Art.199, which could restrain the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution
Article 199 was the fundamental provision enunciating the jurisdiction of the High Court and it was mandatory upon the High Court to confine itself within its jurisdiction as provided in the Article
Plain reading of Article 199, contemplated that writ by the employees or by any aggrieved party against any statutory body irrespective of their rules whether statutory or non-statutory, the High Court could assume and exercise its jurisdiction and no lacuna or other technicalities, should come in the way of providing efficacious and speedy justice; because if technicalities of law were allowed to prevail over those who were subject to the law, the end of justice would become impossible to meet
Article 199 of the Constitution conferred jurisdiction upon the High Court to intervene and give directions on the application of "any aggrieved party" as laid down in its paragraph (a) of clause (1) and also as provided in paragraph (c) of clause (1)
Such was a right ensured to every person under the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved of the orders passed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad for non-counting of petitioner's service rendered with WAPDA for pension purpose.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad through proper channel from WAPDA, but the petitioner was denied the pay protection and the same was challenged in Writ Petition No.7346 of 2000 which was admitted after hearing both the parties and the order refusing the said protection was suspended by this Court, however, the Board realized its fault and allowed pay protection but unfortunately the relief of pensionary benefits in that respect is declined in violation of the instructions of the Government of the Punjab.
3. The petitioner moved before the Board for the redressal of his grievance and accordingly a Committee was constituted who recommended the petitioner's claim on the strength of a Circular of WAPDA dated 30-6-1986 observing that the service in WAPDA was pensionable and there was no break of the petitioner's service of WAPDA and as such that very service rendered by the petitioner in WAPDA is countable towards pensionary benefits provided the petitioner is prepared to deposit his own contribution of Rs.2,09,727.98.
4. The petitioner was asked to deposit the aforesaid amount on account of said Committee's recommendations; the petitioner complied with the direction and the said amount was deposited but surprisingly keeping in view aside all these developments the petitioner's claim was not actualized, which action of the Board is neither justified nor covered under law rather it is a deviation to well settled law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Nafees Ahmad v. Pakistan 2000 PSC 50.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents after consulting the record with the help of Board's representative did not controvert that the petitioner's pay was protected during the pendency of Writ Petition No.7346 of 2000 as well as the availability of recommendations of the duly constituted Committee, by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad in respect of petitioner's claim for counting the period of service rendered with WAPDA for pensionary benefits as well as the deposit of contribution of pension by the petitioner himself but he submits that the refusal by the Board for non-accepting to the petitioner's request in the only domain of the Board Authorities and the present writ is not competent on the sole ground that the rules governing the Board are not statutory and in this respect he relies on a judgment reported as University of the Punjab Lahore v. Ch. Sardar Ali 1992 SCMR 1093. Further submits that the petitioner is regulated by the principle of Master and Servant and as such could not invoke the jurisdiction of High Court.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. As already noted above that the petitioner's request for the protection of pay was acceded to by the respondents/Board and for the grievance of petitioner's pensionary benefits a duly constituted Committee by the Board recommended with reasons for the redressal of petitioner's grievance in the following words:-- "In view of the above discussion and the references brought by the officer on the file, the instant committee feels inclined on merit to recommend to count his previous service rendered with WAPDA (an autonomous body) towards future pensionary benefits especially under the circumstances when the W.P. No.7346/2000 filed by him in the High Court was finally disposed of while accepting the appeal of the appellant (Mr. Muhammad Ikram, System Analyst) and the Board consequently granted him the right of pay protection.-- .The appellant deposits pension contribution for the previous service according to prescribed rate/rules from his own resources as the previous employer-WAPDA had shown its inability to this effect in the event of his selection when the N.O.C. was issued. Making payment from ones own pocket towards pension contribution for the service rendered with previous employer (Government) is prevalent with the State Bank of Pakistan as contained in Circular No.PD.77/Reg.11 (Viii)-96 of 11-8-1996."
8. The moot point for the determination in the present writ is that whether in the presence of judgment of Ch. Sardar Ali (supra) and