2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAYED MEHAR HUSSAIN SHAH (MEMBER).

The appellant, in view of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 21-4-1999 in Appeal No.780(L) of 1997 M. Zubair Rana v. Secretary Railways Board, Ministry of Railways and others, has filed a representation dated 12-6-2000 for grant of BPS-15 w.e.f. 1-7-1983 and three advance increments for possessing M.A. w.e.f. 25-3-1988, which representation was rejected vide letter dated 8-7-2000, conveyed to him on 9-8-2000; hence, this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Education Department of the respondent-Pakistan Railways as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) w.e.f. 29-8-1979 in BS-9 and was posted in Pakistan Railways Boys Secondary School, Karachi Cantt. On 1-7-1983, he was switched over to BS-9 on coming into force of scheme of basic pay scale on 18-8-1983 and subsequently was granted selection grade in BS-12 under the said scheme. That while the appellant had been working under supervision of respondent No.3, the respondent No.1 through the respondent No.2, allowed BS-15 vide order dated 14-9-1989: That only two Male PTIs had been working, the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Zubair Rana who was posted in Pakistan Railways Boys Secondary School, Lahore. That Zubair Rana challenged the discrimination for granting BS-15 w.e.f. 16-5-1989 which was required to have been granted w.e.f. 1-7-1983 as per policy decision of Government of Pakistan, contained in letter dated 18-8-1983, by filing Appeal No.780(L) of 1997 before the FST, Lahore, which was allowed with back-benefits. That the said judgment was challenged by the respondents-Pakistan Railways before the honourable Supreme Court in C.P.L.A. No.845-L of 1999, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14-9-1999. A Civil Review Petition No.57-L of 1999 was also filed which too was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant agued that the judgment of this Tribunal has attained finality on dismissal of C.P. No.845-L of 1999 by the honourable Supreme Court. That as the case of the appellant is identical in nature with that of M. Zubair Rana, appellant filed a representation .on 12-6-2000, which was considered/rejected vide letter conveyed to the appellant on 8-7-2000 and received by the appellant on 9-8-2000; hence this appeal, which is within time. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on 1995 SCMR 776, 1997 PLC (C.S.) 579, 1996 SCMR 856, 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1, 1995 SCMR 950, 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1458, 1998 SCMR 2652=1999 PLC (C.S.) 1, 1993 PLC (C.S.) 123, 1995 PLC (C.S.) 803, 1995 SCMR 16, 1998 PLC (C.S.) 653 and 1986 PLC (C.S.)

745. He vehemently argued that status, position and circumstances of the appellant are the same as that of M. Zubair Rana, appellant in Appeal No.78(L) of 1997 and the benefits of that judgment of the FST would have been extended to the appellant. He placed reliance on 1996 SCMR 1185 and 1984 PLC (C.S.)

452. He argued that the appeal may be allowed with full back-benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of comments, filed on behalf of the respondents, contended that the judgment of FST was applicable in the case of Muhammad Zubair Rana, PTI and not in case of the appellant, not being party to the proceedings before the FST. The honourable Federal Service Tribunal did not stipulate general implication of the judgment. He argued that the honourable Supreme Court in C.P. 845-L of 1999 has made it clear that this may not be cited in any other case. He argued that the appeal be dismissed.

5. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and have also carefully perused the material placed on record. The honourable Supreme Court in a case reported in 1996 SCMR 1185 has observed that, if FST or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant which covers not only the cases of civil.. servants who litigated but also of other civil servants who may have notes taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by FST or Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants who may not be parties to the litigations instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal.

6. We find that there is no observation of the honourable Supreme Court in the judgment passed in C.P.L.A. No.845-L of 1999, as has been mentioned by the respondents, while rejecting the representation by the Director Schools, Pakistan Railways. The obiter dicta of the judgment are that the appeal and Review Petition filed by respondent-Pakistan Railways were dismissed, as such, the judgment of this Tribunal holds the field and attained finality. In 1997 PLC (C.S.) 165, it was held that PTIs cannot be discriminated in comparison to other teachers and benefits given to other teachers cannot be refused. Such benefits to the PTIs, who are at par with them, is also required to have been given and case of the appellant is identical in nature. Other teachers have been allowed benefit of the said scheme, but the appellant, being at par with them, has been refused and discriminated.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that impugned appellate order dated 8-7-2000 is set aside. We direct that the appellant be allowed BS-15 w.e.f. 1-7-1983 with back-benefits. They are also directed to accord three advance increments w.e.f. 25-3-1988 with arrears upto date for passing M.A. No order as to costs.

8. Parties be informed accordingly. H.B.T./26/FST Appeal allowed.