PLC(CS) 2007

2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAZAL KARIM Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL through Chairman and others .

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.1631-L of 2001, decided on 24th October, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Falak Sher and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Falak Sher and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ
Parties FAZAL KARIM Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL through Chairman and others .
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Falak Sher and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (FAZAL KARIM Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL through Chairman and others .). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • M.A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Rukhsana Nadeem, Deputy Secretary (Finance) for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 24-3-2001 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.778 of 1999).

Art. 212(3)

Advance increment

Entitlement

Petitioner, a selection grade stenographer (BS-16), who, by virtue of move-over in BS-17, was designated as Private Secretary (BS-17), filed representation for grant of two advance increments on acquiring LL.B., Degree; a qualification higher, than one prescribed under the rules for the post of senior scale stenographer

Validity

Vide Finance Department Circular No.FD.PR12-3/91, dated 14-4-1997, officials in BS-16 were also declared entitled to advance increments for acquiring higher qualification, provided that same was in the relevant field

Law degree acquired by petitioner, could not be said to be a higher qualification "in his own field" in respect of a senior scale stenographer

Petition was dismissed. Zarif Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1996 MLD 833 ref. Petitioner in Person.

Judgment & Decree

SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.

The petitioner, a selection grade Stenographer (BS-16) and by virtue of move-over in BS-17, designated as Private Secretary (BS-17), filed a representation before the Secretary, A Services of the Government of the Punjab for the grant of two advance increments on acquiring LL.B. degree, a qualification higher than the one prescribed under the rules for the post of senior scale Stenographer. It remained unresponded. He then approached a learned Ombudsman, Punjab but his complaint was dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction on which he filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. His case before the learned Tribunal was based on judgments of the Lahore High Court in - Writ Petition No.7784 of 1991, of the N.-W.F.P. High Court in Zarif Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1996 MLD 833, and of this Court in C.P. No.5-F, 6-F of 1996. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 24-3-2001.

2. The petitioner has appeared in person and has reiterated the contention that he was entitled to two advance increments for acquiring LL.B. degree. He also raised the plea of discrimination. The representative of the Finance Department was in attendance who brought E to our notice for the first time it was vide Finance Department Circular No.FD.PR.12-3/91, dated 14-4-1997 that the officials in BS-16 were also declared entitled to advance increments for acquiring higher qualification provided that the same was "in the relevant field".

3. We have considered the submissions. Law degree cannot be said' to be a higher qualification "in his own field" in respect of a senior scale Stenographer. The judgments of the Lahore High Court, the N.-W.F.P. High Court and this Court related to the Court staff and, keeping in view the nature of their duties they were rightly held entitling to advance increments. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave declined. H.B.T./F-6/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave declined.