1996SCMR1011 (PLP)
Peshawar and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD QAVI KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996SCMR1011 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Peshawar and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD QAVI KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR1011 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR1011 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR1011 (PLP) (Peshawar and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD QAVI KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court and H.M.A. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th September, 1994.
- Shahzad Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court and H.M.A. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Service Tribunal, N.‑W.F.P Peshawer dated 18‑10‑1993 passed in Appeal No: 90 of 1993). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Non‑regularization of service‑‑‑Entitlement to pay‑‑‑Extent‑‑ Civil servant was appointed as Senior English Teacher and he worked for ten years in that capacity‑‑‑Non‑regularization of service was due to civil servant's failure to qualify in B.Ed., which was requisite qualification for regularization‑‑ Service Tribunal although did not order for regularization of civil servant's services yet it directed that he was entitled to pay and scale of Senior English Teacher from the time he joined service‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant was given fixed pay although he was performing duties of Senior English Teacher, therefore, he could not be deprived of scale of Senior English Teacher post‑‑ Finding rendered by Service Tribunal did not suffer from any illegality ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Jan Shahpur and others 1986 SCMR 991 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the order of the Deputy District Education Officer (Male) Secondary sent was set aside.
2. The brief facts are that respondent was appointed as S.E.T. Teacher on 1-10-1983. He completed 10 years' service as S.E.T. but as his services not regularised against the post of S.E.T. he preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected on 4-3-1993. The petitioners pleaded that the respondent has joined the service as S.E.T. Teacher on fixed pay and had sought regularization against S.E.T. post which required the qualification of B.Sc/B.A. and B.Ed and as the appellant had not acquired the qualification of B.Ed his services could not be regularized against the post of S.E.T. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal in the following manner:
"In this case the admitted facts are that the appellant has not obtained the Degree of B.Ed which is prerequisite for the post of S.E.T. therefore, his services cannot be regularized against the S.E.T. post. However since his appointment in Education Department the appellant is working as S.E.T. for the last 10 years, therefore, he is entitled to the graded pay from the date of his department appeal. The Tribunal while partially accepting the appeal directs the appellant shall be allowed only the pay and scale of S.E.T. post from when he joined the Education Department and he shall also be paid the arrears in the said scale from the date of institution of his departmental appeal. The services of the appellant as S.E.T. cannot be regularized in the given circumstances. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record. "
3. Mr. Shahzad Akbar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the respondent had not acquired the requisite qualification, he was not entitled to the regularization of his post nor could pay be given fixed under Pay Scale No. 15, which is the regular scale for S.E.T. post. From the arguments and the facts, it seems that the respondent is given fixed pay for the last 10 years, although he is performing duties of S.E.T. Teacher's post. In such circumstances, in view of the case reported as Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Jan Shahpur and others 1986 SCMR 991), the petitioner could not be deprived of the scale of S. E. T. post. The observations made by the Tribunal do not suffer from any illegality. In any event no legal question of general importance has been raised. Leave is refused. A.A./N-413/S Leave refused.