2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INLAND REVENUE and another Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN and others
| Citation | 2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir-ul-Mulk, C.J., Gulzar Ahmed and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INLAND REVENUE and another Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir-ul-Mulk, C.J., Gulzar Ahmed and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INLAND REVENUE and another Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ibrar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.1 to 39.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 2014.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19-2-2014 passed in I.C.A. 303 of 2011)
Arts. 25, 185(3) & 199
Similar posts in different departments performing similar functions
Up-gradation of posts
Uniformity
Respondents were appointed as Senior Auditors (BPS-16) in the Sales Tax Department
After reconfiguration of tax department respondents were re-designated as Inland Revenue Audit Officers
Respondents filed constitutional petition before the High Court for up-gradation of their posts on the analogy of up-gradation of posts to BPS-18 of Audit Officers in other departments like Auditor General of Pakistan, Accountant-General Punjab and Controller General of Accounts
Constitutional petition was allowed by the High Court on the grounds that respondents performed similar functions to that of Audit Officers in the other said departments, thus, refusal to grant them BPS-18 would amount to discrimination, and that Paragraph 2(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 20-1-2001 provided for uniformity in the up-gradation of similar posts in different departments of similar nature
Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider inter alia whether the constitutional petition filed by the respondents before the High Court was maintainable, as its subject matter related to the terms and conditions of service of the respondents and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal; whether Paragraph No. 2(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 20-1-2001, could be construed in a manner that the up-gradation of a post in one department of the Government would furnish a ground to the officers performing similar job in other departments for up-gradation of the post, as the said provision provided that up-gradation could only be made if it was considered to be necessary for bringing about rationalism in the administrative structure; whether maintaining the impugned judgment of the High Court would bring about anomalies within the Inland Revenue Department as the respondents may as a result rank senior to other officers to whom they were subordinate; and whether the respondents could have been granted up-gradation from BPS-16 to BPS-18 when in the meanwhile their posts had already been upgraded to BPS-17 on 14-4-2012.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR-UL-MULK, C.J.
Respondents Nos. 1 to 39 were appointed as Senior Auditors (BPS-16) in the Sales Tax Department and after reconfiguration of the Tax Department were re-designated as Inland Revenue Audit Officers. They filed Constitution Petition before the Islamabad High Court in the year 2010 for upgradation of their posts on the analogy of upgradation of posts to BPS-18 of Audit Officers in other departments like Auditor General of Pakistan, Accountant General Punjab and Controller General of Accounts, Accountant General, Punjab. Their Constitution Petition was allowed on the ground that since they perform similar functions as the Audit Officer in the said Departments, refusal to grant them BPS-18 would amount to discrimination. Apart from certain case-law, the Court referred to Paragraph 2(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 20-1-2001 providing for uniformity in the upgradation of similar posts in different similar departments. The Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue filed Intra Court Appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, whether:-- (i) the Writ Petition filed by the respondents under Article 199 of the Constitution was maintainable, as its subject matter related to the terms and condition of service of the respondents and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal; (ii) Paragraph No.2(a) of the Memorandum dated 20-1-2001 can be construed in a manner that the upgradation of a post in one department of the Government would furnish a ground to the officers performing similar job in other departments for upgradation of the post, as the said provision provides that upgradation can only be made if it is considered to be necessary for bringing about rationalism in the administrative structure; (iii) that maintaining the impugned judgment would bring about anomalies within the Inland Revenue Department as the respondents may as a result rank senior to other officers to whom they were subordinate; (iv) the respondents could have been granted upgradation from BPS-16 to BPS-18 when in the meanwhile their posts have already been upgraded to BPS-17 on 14-4-2012.
3. The appeal be fixed for hearing after Summer Vacations, 2014. C.M.A. No.3131 of 2014 The application is allowed and operation of the impugned judgment is suspended. MWA/C-4/SC Leave granted.