2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AFZAL MUNAWAR and others Versus SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL MUNAWAR and others Versus SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
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 Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL MUNAWAR and others Versus SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Withdrawal of advance increments and deduction or amount from salaries of petitioners received for said increments---Grievance of petitioners was that by impugned notification issued by the Finance Department, two shortfall advance increments due to petitioners on account of acquiring higher educational qualifications, had been withdrawn and payments thereof already made to petitioners were directed to be deducted from petitioner's salaries---Petitioners had alleged that impugned letter/notification was issued on the basis of recommendations made by Provincial Ombudsman in proceedings to which petitioners were not parties and were never heard--Submission of petitioners was that irregular payment made by competent Authority for the services performed by employees of the government, could not be deducted from his subsequent salaries under the principle of locus poeniteniae---Validity---Grievances raised by petitioners, had never been presented before concerned respondent Authorities---Additional Advocate General had assured, if the impugned notification had violated any legal right of petitioners, same could be disputed by petitioners before competent authorities---Counsel for petitioners had expressed willingness to approach the authorities in terms laid down by Additional Advocate General---Petitioners, in circumstances were directed to file their representation before the authorities who would hear petitioners and decide their objections strictly in accordance with law within specified period---No deduction from current salaries of petitioners would be made to recover past payment of disputed shortfall advance increments until recording of a decision by competent authority and no future payment of .shortfall advance increment would be made to petitioners.
- Muhammad Iqbal Mohal for Petitioners.
- Najeeb Faisal Chaudhry, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.
- Saqib Akram Gondal for petitioner (in connected writ petitions).
- 3. Learned Additional Advocate-General has informed that before considering the foregoing principle enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court, it may be noted in the present case that the grievance raised by the petitioners has never been represented before the concerned respondent authorities. The statement is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He assures that insofar as the impugned letter, dated 7-3-2006 issued by the Financial Department is alleged to c have violated any legal rights of the petitioners, the same may be disputed by the petitioners before respondent No.1 or a competent Finance Department authority designated by him who shall grant the petitioners a careful hearing in the matter and decide their objections to the impugned action strictly in accordance with law. Faced with such assurance, the learned counsel for the petitioners have expressed their willingness to approach the respondent No.1 in terms laid out by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
Headnotes / Summary
Muhammad Afzal Naeem Ranjha, Litigation Officer, Office of the E.D.O. :Education M.B. Din/respondent No.4. Qasim Mohsin, Office of D.A.O. Gujrat.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned notification, dated 7-3-2006 issued by the Financial Department, two shortfall advance increments due to the petitioners on account of acquiring higher educational qualification have been withdrawn and payments thereof that have already been made to the petitioners have been directed to be deducted from the petitioners' salaries. The impugned letter was issued on the basis of recommendations made by the learned Provincial Ombudsman in December, 2005 in proceedings to which the petitioners were not parties and therefore, they were never heard. Being apprehensive of the financial loss likely to be caused by the impugned deductions, the petitioners have approached this Court to challenge the impugned order. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that under the applicable law and rules, petitioners have a good case on the merits and the impugned order is invalid both with respect to recovery of past payments to the petitioners and the denial of entitlement to future payments thereof.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shahid Masood Nadeem v. Deputy C.A.A.F., Lahore Cantt. and 3 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1262 and Government of Sindh v. Abdul Sattar Sheikh and others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 589 to submit that the irregular payment made by a competent authority for the services performed by an employee of the Government cannot be deducted from his subsequent salaries under the principle of locus poenitentiae.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General has informed that before considering the foregoing principle enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court, it may be noted in the present case that the grievance raised by the petitioners has never been represented before the concerned respondent authorities. The statement is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He assures that insofar as the impugned letter, dated 7-3-2006 issued by the Financial Department is alleged to c have violated any legal rights of the petitioners, the same may be disputed by the petitioners before respondent No.1 or a competent Finance Department authority designated by him who shall grant the petitioners a careful hearing in the matter and decide their objections to the impugned action strictly in accordance with law. Faced with such assurance, the learned counsel for the petitioners have expressed their willingness to approach the respondent No.1 in terms laid out by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
4. In view of the foregoing position, the petitioners are directed to file their representations before respondent No. 1 who shall hear the petitioners and decide their objections strictly in accordance with law within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. Until such time as a decision is made by the respondent No. 1 in deference to the rule laid down in the aforenoted precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court, no deduction from current salaries of the petitioners shall be made to recover past payments of the disputed shortfall advance increments. Likewise until the recording of a decision by respondent No. 1 no future payment of the shortfall advance increment shall be made to the petitioners. Disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./M-676/L Order accordingly.