1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Nawab Saeed Ullah Khan for Petitioner. S.M. Zubair, AA: G. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988. Mst. Sardaran Begum the petitioner, was appointed as a peon in Government City Muslim League School, Primary Section, Said Mitha Bazar, Lahore. This institution was nationalized under M.L.R. 118 of 1972.

2. The claim of the petitioner is that on nationalization the petitioner became an employee of the Education Department. Government of the Punjab and was paid salary in that position. The last salary was received in that capacity in June, 1977 but thereafter the Department did not make any payment of the salary to the petitioner in spite of repeated requests in writing. The petitioner, therefore, instituted this constitutional petition for seeking a declaration to the effect that the petitioner be treated as Government employee and she be paid her salary in accordance with law. The District Education Officer in the report and parawise comments took the position that the petitioner was taken into Government service as a part‑time employee at the rate of Rs.60 p.m. and that she has actually received her part‑time salary upto June, 1983 and that she actually remained on duty upto 9‑5‑1984. It is further stated in the parawise comments that so far as the pay fixation statement referred to in para. No. 6 of the petition is concerned, the same was subject to availability of a regular post of Class IV employee and as she was never adjusted against a regular post she could not be paid the pay according to the said pay fixation statement. It is added that the petitioner did not agitate against the part‑time payment till she remained present in the school. The petitioner rejoined the service somewhere in the year 1986. The District Education Officer on 21st of December, 1987 stated before this Court that the petitioner has been given fresh employment but that did not satisfy the petitioner as her grievance was that she is to be treated as a Government servant since the nationalization of Schools under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 as she was serving the school before the Nationalization and continued to perform the duties of peon thereafter till 1984 and then since 1986. The District Education Officer again on 12‑3‑1988 stated that the documents brought on record by the petitioner do not form part of the record of the department though they show that the petitioner was a full‑time employee of the school. He was not able to controvert these documents, which obviously pertain to the school in which the petitioner was serving and continues to serve as indicated above. The above resume of facts indicate that the Government has treated the petitioner as a Government servant by giving her fresh employment. This treatment obviously would not be fair if the petitioner was a whole time employee of the school at the time of nationalization. The petitioner has succeeded to establish her plea that she was a whole‑time employee. This plea has not been controverted by the respondent Department by producing any cogent evidence. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that in a similar case (Writ Petition No. 2340/S of 1978), the l then learned Chief Justice issued a direction to treat the said petitioner as a Government servant and to pay him emoluments and other benefits in accordance with the Rules relating to other such Government servants. This decision applies fully to the case of the petitioner and as such the petitioner is entitled to receive the same treatment. The Government has already accepted the petitioner in Government service. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be treated as a Government servant and shall be paid her emoluments and other benefits according to the Rules relating to such Government servants. In the above terms, the petition stands accepted. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. AA./S‑310/L Petition accepted.