1998 PLP 2722 (SCMR)
Civil Petition No.349 of 1997 Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2722 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | Civil Petition No.349 of 1997 Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2722 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2722 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2722 (SCMR) (Civil Petition No.349 of 1997 Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Elahi Sheikh. Additional Attorney‑General for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Nemo, for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1998.
- Altaf Elahi Sheikh. Additional Attorney-General for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- 5. Mr. Altaf Elahi Sheikh, learned Additional Advocate-General respectfully submitted that the disturbance allowance had been paid to Mr. Arshad Munawar, Private Secretary due to computer mistake and a decision had been taken to recover the same. However, no document has been placed on record to show that the impugned allowance has been recovered from the aforesaid official or any decision in regard thereto has been taken by the Competent Authority. In the circumstance, the High Court was right in allowing the petition on the ground of discriminatory treatment being meted out to the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 16‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Staff of Lahore High Court‑‑‑Entitlement to receive disturbance allowance up to 30 per cent. of pay by those employees who had joined service prior to 1981‑‑‑Employees had been receiving allowance in question up to May, 1994, when the same was stopped‑‑ High Court allowed payment of allowance in question to employees in Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution filed by employees‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Contention raised was that disturbance allowance had been paid to one individual due to computer mistake and decision had been taken to recover the same‑‑‑No document, however, was placed on record to show that impugned allowance had been recovered from aforesaid official or any decision in regard thereto had been taken by Competent Authority‑‑‑High Court was, thus, right it allowing Constitutional petition on ground of discriminatory treatment being meted out to employees of High Court‑‑‑Decision rendered by High Court, however, would be confined to facts of present case‑‑‑Leave was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Through this common order we propose of dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.349 of 1997 and 1208-L of 1997, arising out of orders respectively passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi and Multan Benches in Writ Petitions Nos.2045 of 1996 and 3561 of 1997.
2. The dispute herein relates to 30% disturbance allowance, which was granted to the staff of the Lahore High Court, who joined service prior to 1981, vide Letter No. CAB-I/4-86/83, dated 10-11-1986, issued by the Government of Punjab.
3. The brief facts are that the respondents have been receiving this allowance till May, 1994 but later it was stopped.
4. In view of the Constitutional petitions filed by the respondents before their respective Benches of the Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi and Multan, the High Court allowed the payment of the disputed allowance to the respondents, inter alia, on the following grounds:-- "3 . the stand taken by the petitioner is legally sound for the reason that the disturbance allowance is to be given when the employee of the Lahore High Court is to be disturbed and the words "30% of his basic pay" are also material and most relevant to decide this controversy. This 30% is to be seen according to the time when disturbance takes place ...."
5. Mr. Altaf Elahi Sheikh, learned Additional Advocate-General respectfully submitted that the disturbance allowance had been paid to Mr. Arshad Munawar, Private Secretary due to computer mistake and a decision had been taken to recover the same. However, no document has been placed on record to show that the impugned allowance has been recovered from the aforesaid official or any decision in regard thereto has been taken by the Competent Authority. In the circumstance, the High Court was right in allowing the petition on the ground of discriminatory treatment being meted out to the respondents.
6. In view of the above, we find no force in these petitions. It may, however, be observed that the decision rendered by the High Court in the instant cases shall be confined to the facts of the present case.
7. With this observation, the petitions are dismissed and leave refused. A.A./D-6/S Leave refused.