1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1991. The petitioner, through this Constitutional petition, has sought a direction for payment of his salary to him and calculation of his pension in accordance with law.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the office of respondent No. 1 as Stenographer and his letter of appointment is dated 20-6-1950 which is placed on the record as Annexure `A'. The Government in the year 1960 promulgated the Municipal Administration Ordinance. Thereafter, West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Schedule of Establishment) Rules, 1964, were promulgated. The same were made effective from 1962. It is added that the respondent No. 1. notified to the Government the post of the petitioner as Steno-typist instead of Stenographer. The petitioner came to know of the mistake and applied for correction of the same. The same was allowed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as Controlling Authority, vide order dated 17-2-1969. The grievance of the petitioner is that this correction is not being given effect from the inception of the Rules rather; it has been treated as amendment in the Schedule and being given effect from the date of order of the Controlling Authority. The petitioner has challenged this action through the present Constitutional petition. The same was admitted to hearing on 13th March, 1972, and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have appeared and contested the same.

3. The petitioner appeared in person and argued that the Schedule was incorrectly prepared by the respondent No. 1 and corrected by the Controlling Authority on the move of the petitioner. It is added that the petitioner was never Steno-typist, and, in fact, he had joined as Stenographer in 1950.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the Schedule was amended and the amendment is to take effect from the date when it was made and cannot be given retrospective effect until so provided in the amending order itself.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General. The admitted position is that the petitioner joined as Stenographer. Therefore, if he was shown in the Schedule prepared by respondent No. 1 in 1964 as Stenotypist, then it is not his fault. The respondents have no right or jurisdiction to change the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner. The admitted position is that the petitioner when came to know of this mistake, he moved the Controlling Authority for its correction, which was allowed on 17-10-1969. The same is neither amendment nor addition to the Schedule. The respondents have wrongly and illegally interpreted the same. It is merely a correction in the Schedule submitted by respondent No. 1 in 1964. The moment it was allowed it became a part of the Schedule submitted by respondent No. 1 in the year 1964. The respondents cannot be allowed to have benefit of their own lapses.

6. The result is that this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner his salary, calculate his pension as Stenographer throughout and pay his dues expeditiously and in any case by the 30th of March, 1991. M.Y.H./M-2667/L Petition allowed.