2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Sarfraz Ali Khan for Petitioner. Sher Zaman, Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan Ghulam Haider Al‑Ghazali, Addl. A.‑G. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:‑‑ (i) the said act of the Government increasing the salary of one class of persons but denying the same to the other classes of the persons equally placed may kindly be declared as unjust, unfair, unwarranted, un‑Islamic, discriminatory and violative of Constitution, 1973. (ii) the respondents may kindly be ordered to increase the salary of the employees N.I.C. and of all other Government institutions 100% to 140% and (iii) any other relief order or writ deemed fit in the eye of the Court may also be issued or passed in the vindication of the grievance referred to above.. The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that similar organizations Le National Bank of Pakistan like the petitioner's Corporation have already increased salaries of their employees but the respondents did not increase the salary of the employees of the petitioners Organization/Corporation, therefore, action of the respondents is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. He relied upon I.A. Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041. He further states that this Court has ample power under Article 199 of the Constitution to give directions to the respondents to enact the rules for the purpose of increasing salaries of the employees of the petitioner's Organization/Corporation. He relied upon 1998 SCMR 91 Federation of Pakistan v. Sh. Abdul Aziz 1998 SCMR 2280 Khalid Mehmood Wattoo's case PLD 1996 Lahore 499 Imtiaz Hussasin Qazami's case PLJ 1998 Lahore 985 Hafiz Mazhar Hussain's case.

2. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General contended that the petitioner is employee of Insurance Corporation which is controlled by the Federal Government, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable after the addition of section 2‑A of the Service Tribunal's Act 1973. He also relied upon the aforementioned case of Khalid Mehmood Wattoo.

3. The learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that Article 25 of the Constitution is not attracted as the petitioner's Organization has its own independent entity whereas the other Organization i.e. banks having their own independent status. He further stated that petitioner has filed writ petition probono publico, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.

4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal stated that the respondents have not passed any final order against the petitioner, therefore, petitioner has no alternate remedy to agitate the matter before the Service Tribunal. He further stated that petitioner tiled this writ petition to give directions to the respondents to increase the salaries of the employees of the petitioner's Corporation by enacting rules similar to the other Organizations like banks etc.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties. It is settled proposition of law that it is for the legislature to legislate and amend the laws and it is for the Courts to interpret such laws as to make them practicable. Our Constitution is based on trichotomy as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zia ur‑Rehman's case PLD 1993 SC

473. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down grund norms that the superior Courts have only power to interpret the law and have no power whatsoever to enact the laws. Each of the organ of the State is independent of each other and has no authority whatsoever to usurp power of the other organ of the State. It is the pre‑rogative of the Government to formulate the policies. These policies are determined generally with reference to the domestic needs, their priorities and multitudes of other factors of which the Government is the sole arbiter in exercise of its Executive Authority. The decision taken, falls within the realm of Policy Making. These policy decisions are binding on the subordinate authorities and a matter of duty and the High Court has no jurisdiction as mentioned above to take the role of legislature or policy maker. I am fortified by the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:‑‑ PLD 1975 SC 667 (Government of Pakistan v. Zameer Ahmed Khan). 1978 SCMR 327 (Zameer Ahmad Khan V. Government of Pakistan). It is also settled proposition of law that reasonable classification is permissible as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brig: F.B. Ali's case PLD 1975 SC

506. This principle was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041. The petitioner has filed writ petition in representative capacity without fulfilling the requirement of Order I,. Rule 8, C.P.C,, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the principle laid down by this Court in PLD 1973 Lahore

500. The judgment cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law as the learned counsel failed to cite even a single citation in which this Court has given direction to enact the Rules or frame policies or increase the salaries. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of the petitioner after the addition of Section 2‑A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 as the p principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:‑‑ 1999 SCMR 894 and 1998 SCMR 1603 The writ petition is also not maintainable as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of the petitioner as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqan Ahmad Khurram's case PLD 1980 SC

153. In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑139/L Petition dismissed.