SCMR 2006

2006SCMR1180 (PLP)

SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Petitioner Versus Syeda ZIL-E-SUBHANI JEHAN ARA BEGUM — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.878-L of 2002, decided on 24th November, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Falak Sher and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006SCMR1180 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Falak Sher and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ
Parties SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Petitioner Versus Syeda ZIL-E-SUBHANI JEHAN ARA BEGUM — Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006SCMR1180 (PLP)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006SCMR1180 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Falak Sher and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006SCMR1180 (PLP) (SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Petitioner Versus Syeda ZIL-E-SUBHANI JEHAN ARA BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • A.H. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Anis, Deputy Secretary and Muhammad Aslam, Assistant for Petitioners.
  • Pervez Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 24th November, 2005.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12-1-2002 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No.2997 of 1999).

Art. 212(3)

Advance increments

Entitlement

Service Tribunal had not examined question of entitlement of respondent to grant of advance increments in the light of rules/policies governing the subject and had allowed respondent's appeal only on the ground that competent Authority had granted said increments to three others who were similarly placed as the respondent, and since advance increments had been illegally allowed to said three subject specialist; and because on illegality committed by someone could be no precedent for a judicial forum to commit a similar illegality, counsel for parties agreed that matter be remanded to Service Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and then to determine; whether respondent was entitled to advance increments in question in terms of relevant rules/policies

Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed, as a result whereof impugned judgment was set aside and matter was remanded to Service Tribunal for fresh decision of the same.

Judgment & Decree

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

Since the learned Tribunal had not examined the question of entitlement of the respondent to the grant of advance increments in the light of the rules/policies governing the subject and had allowed the respondent's appeal only on the ground that the competent authority had granted the said increments to three others who were similarly placed as the respondent, and since it was admitted before us that advance increments had been illegally allowed to the said three subject specialists and because an illegality committed by some one could be no precedent for a judicial forum to commit a similar illegality, therefore, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and then to determine whether the respondent was entitled to the advance increments in question in terms of the relevant rules/policies. 2.? In this view of the matter, this petition is converted into an appeal which is allowed as a result whereof the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision of the same in the light of what has been noticed above. 3.? If the learned Tribunal finds that the respondent was not entitled to the grant of the said increments, then the Education Secretary is directed to bring the others similarly placed, at par with the respondent. H.B.T./S-7/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.