2020 PLP 2064 (SCMR)
The DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI and others — Appellants Versus Syed IRSHAD ALI ABID — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 2064 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | The DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI and others — Appellants Versus Syed IRSHAD ALI ABID — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 2064 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 2064 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 2064 (SCMR) (The DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI and others — Appellants Versus Syed IRSHAD ALI ABID — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.D. Shahzad Feroz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Kh. Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 24.08.2015 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 1912(R)CS/ 2012)
Art. 25
Scheme for encouraging higher education
Employees with higher education entitled for advance increments
Withdrawal of scheme
No vested right
Promissory estoppal
Scope
Respondent-employee secured his LL.B degree in the year 2002 on the basis of the scheme in question introduced by the Railway Authorities in the year 1996
Respondent claimed four advance increments on account of having secured the said degree
Employer/Pakistan Railways contested the claim on the ground that the incentive scheme was discontinued by the Railway authorities vide notification dated 13.9.2001
Service Tribunal found that the employee was entitled to the advance increments for two reasons; firstly, in similar cases the relief was granted in the year 2011 after the closure of the scheme and secondly, the Railway authorities had conceded and granted the right to such relief in the case of several similarly placed persons
Consequently, denial of the relief to the employee would constitute discrimination
Held, that perusal of the record showed that the persons who were granted relief by the Service Tribunal had obtained their higher qualification prior to the year 2001, consequently, they enjoyed same entitlement which was given judicial recognition
In the second category of cases the judgments given by the Service Tribunal were given ex-parte against Pakistan Railways
Furthermore, neither of the said orders dealt with the withdrawal of the scheme vide notification dated 13.9.2001
Respondent was making his claim in the year 2012 before the Service Tribunal although the benefit scheme had been withdrawn in the year 2001
Although Railways had given an assurance that an alternative scheme would be introduced again in due course, but till date that had not happened
No promissory estoppel had arisen in the present case because the scheme was withdrawn before the employee secured his higher qualification in the year 2002
Consequently, there was no vested right in the employee to be granted the benefit of abolished scheme
Appeal was allowed and impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
The respondent secured his LL.B degree in the year 2002 on the basis of a scheme encouraging higher education introduced by the Railway Authorities in the year 1996. The respondent claimed four advance increments on account of having secured the afore-mentioned degree. The appellant-employer of the respondent contested the relief prayed on the ground that the incentive schemes mentioned above were discontinued by the competent Railway authorities vide notification dated 13.9.2001. Paragraph 10 of the said notification provides as follows: "
10. Advance increments: The existing scheme of advance increments is discontinued w.e.f. 1.12.2001. A fresh scheme, if any, will be introduced in due course." 3.(sic.) The learned Tribunal has held that the respondent is entitled to the relief prayed for two reasons; firstly, in similar cases the relief was granted in the year 2011 after the closure of the scheme and secondly, the appellant-authorities had conceded and granted the right to such relief in the case of several similarly placed persons. Consequently, denial of the relief to the respondent would constitute discrimination.
4. A perusal of the record shows that the persons who were granted relief by the Federal Service Tribunal had obtained their higher qualification prior to the year 2001, consequently, they enjoyed some entitlement which is given judicial recognition; in the second case decided by the learned Federal Service Tribunal on 06.9.2010 the judgment was given ex parte against the appellant. Furthermore, neither of the said orders deal with the withdrawal of the incentive vide notification dated 13.9.2001. When asked how the respondent had a right to claim the said relief in the year 2012 when he filed his appeal before the learned Federal Service Tribunal although the benefit scheme had been withdrawn in the year 2001, learned counsel submits that there is an assurance that an alternative scheme shall be brought in due course. That has not happened. There is no ground for considering that any promissory estoppel has arisen in this case because the scheme was withdrawn before the respondent secured his higher qualification in the year 2002. Consequently, there was no vested right in the respondent to be granted the benefit of abolished scheme. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24.8.2015 by the learned Federal Service Tribunal is set aside. MWA/D-6/SC Appeal allowed.