2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Through this Intra‑Court Appeal, under section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance the appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 22‑10‑2002 by which Writ Petition No.3387 of 1992 was accepted and notification dated 30‑3‑1991 was declared as illegal, unlawful and not applicable to the extent of the writ petitioners/private respondents in the present appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents Nos. l to 81 were the employees of the Education Department of the Municipal Committee, Sahiwal and Government of Punjab Finance Department decided to grant advance increments to its employees on the basis of the higher qualifications in the years 1987 and 1991. Respondents were also granted these advance increments vide notification dated 20‑3‑1991 issued by the Finance Department by which the other employees of the Government of Punjab and other different Institutions were held entitled for grant of advance increments on the basis of higher qualifications. After some time the Government of Punjab Finance Department issued another letter bearing No.F.D/PR 12‑3/67(PTI), dated 20‑3‑1991 clarifying that the officials/respondents who have passed the Intermediate Examination from Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, without English are not entitled to the advance increments. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties has allowed Writ Petition No.3387 of 1992 vide judgment dated 22‑10‑2002 by declaring Memo dated 20‑3‑1991 and the action taken on the basis of the same to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Hence, this intra‑Court appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was condemned unheard, who was not aware of the fixation of the case which was decided against them. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.1611/S/1994 whereby the employees who had not passed the English Subject were not held eligible for the advance increments. He further contends that the principle of locus poenitentiae was very much applicable in the present case and the order for grant of advance increments could be recalled after hearing the private respondents. He relies upon PLD 1974 SC 106.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents opposes this appeal on the ground that it was barred by time while the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge being based on law is liable to be maintained. He relies upon Full Bench judgment reported in 2000 YLR 3056 on the same subject. He relies upon a Notification No.8‑413/Acad/80/IV/248, dated 28‑3‑1991, reproduced in para 6 of the impugned judgment, according to which the Degrees/Certificate awarded by A.I.O.U. are equivalent to the Degrees/Certificates awarded by the other Universities in the country and the holders of these Degrees/Certificates are eligible for appointment/advance increments as such, subject to fulfilment of other requirements. of recruitment to a particular post. The condition of qualify the B. A: functional English Code 435 was imposed only for the purpose of higher studies.

5. Learned A.A.‑G. also supports the appeal and contends that the notification issued from time to time by the Finance Department have to be given due weight. It is further contended that after the amendment in the Local Government Ordinance the employees of the District Government have become civil servants and the matter relates to terms and conditions of service.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment. According to the notification dated 28‑3‑1991 the Degrees/Certificates awarded by A.I. O.U are equivalent to the Degrees/Certificates awarded by the other Universities of the country for the intents and purposes appointment/advance increments but the condition of passing English Subject was imposed only for those wishing for higher studies. We find no illegality or improbability in the impugned judgment.

7. The argument of the learned A.A.‑G. that the respondents have been civil servants and the matter relates to the terms and conditions of service is repelled as the writ petition was filed by private respondents who were employees of Municipal Committee and notices were issued to the respondents therein, but no such objection was ever raised by the Government of Punjab in this connection. Even when the writ petition was finally decided, no such objection was raised by the Government or the other respondents. After the perusal of the order sheet it reveals that the Municipal Committee was summoned before the admission of the writ petition and the representatives of the Municipal Committee appeared on particular date. In the present case it was not necessary to issue notice to the Municipal Committee on each and every date as they were aware of the fixation and the pendency of the case in this Court. Even otherwise the appellant has been given full opportunity to argue the case before us, but he has failed to make out 'a case for interference in the impugned, judgment which is well‑reasoned. As the appellant has even failed to make out a case on merits for the present we do not want to comment upon the time limitation in filing the appeal by the appellant. In view of the above this intra‑Court appeal having no force is dismissed. H.B.T./T‑143/L Intra‑Court Appeal dismissed.