1987 PLP 1914 (SCMR)
THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1914 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah Mian Burhanuddin and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1914 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1914 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah Mian Burhanuddin and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1914 (SCMR) (THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. P. S. L. As. Nos. 298 to 305 of 1982).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P.S.L. As. Nos. 298, 300 to 305 of 1982).
- M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P.S.L.A. No. 299 of 1982).
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2 (in C.P.S.L.A. No. 299 of 1982).
- Date of hearing: 8th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 24-1-1982 in Appeals Nos. 79(L) to 85(L) and 87(L) to 88(L) of 1980).
S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunal, while accepting appeals of respondents, directed Federation of Pakistan to place respondents in a particular pay scale--Order impugned--Pleas that office memorandum informing respondents about rejection of their representation for higher scale was merely an intimation and an order and as such it was not appeal-able; and that appeals were time-barred, repelled--Rejection of representation against discriminatory pay scale which was given to respondents constituted an order and appeals were held, within time--Petition being without any merit, dismissed.
S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunal, while accepting appeals of respondents-railway employees, directed Federation of Pakistan to place them in a particular pay scale--Order impugned--Plea that order of Tribunal should have been directed against Ministry of Finance and not against Railways Department, found untenable--Ministry of Finance being a party to appeals filed by respondents, direction given by Service Tribunal applied to that Ministry as well--Petition being devoid of merit dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- These are eight petitions for special leave to appeal by the Federation of Pakistan through the Chairman, Pakistan Railways Board, from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal by which the appeals of the respondents were allowed and a direction was given to the Federation of Pakistan that they be placed in grade of Rs.100-4-140 in the consolidated scales of pay of 1962.
2. The respondents were employed as Return Distributors in the office of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Traffic Accounts Branch, of the Railways Department. Prior to 1949, they alongwith record-lifters and record-suppliers were placed in the scale of Rs.30-1-35. In 1949 when the pay scales were revised they were again placed in the same scale as was given to record-lifters and record-suppliers. In 1962 when scales of pay were again revised the respondents were placed in the scale of Rs.95-3-125 whereas the record-lifters and record -suppliers were given the scale of Rs.100-4-140. The respondents represented against this discrimination. It led to protracted correspondence between the Railways Department and the Ministry of Finance in the Federal Government. The Railways Department supported the claim of the respondents but the Ministry of Finance declined to put the respondents at par in the matter of scales of pay with the record-lifters and record-suppliers. By a letter dated 26-5-1980 the Accounts Officer informed the respondents about the rejection of their representation. The respondents then filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal. The appeals were accepted.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the office memorandum by which the respondents were informed about the rejection of their representation was merely an intimation and not an order and as such it was not appeal-able; further, as the respondents were seeking a higher scale of pay then the one provided in the consolidated pay scales of 1962 their appeal was barred by limitation. In our view both these contentions are without any merit. Admittedly, the respondents were protesting against the pay scale which was given to them under the consolidated pay scale of 1962. They made a representation which was not decided finally till March, 1980. It was only on 26-5-1980 that they were informed about the rejection of their representation. It is difficult to accept that the rejection of representation did not constitute an order. It is not the case of the petitioner that if the terminus a quo for limitation is taken as 26-5-1980 the appeals before the Tribunal would still be barred by time. We would accordingly reject both the contentions.
4. It is then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal should have been directed against the Ministry of Finance and not against the Railways Department. This contention is entirely misconceived. The Ministry of Finance was a party to the appeals filed by the respondents. If therefore any direction was given by the Tribunal it applied to that Ministry as well.
5. No further point was taken in these petitioners. These are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. M.I. /F-20/S.
Petitions dismissed.