PLC(CS) 1983

1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MAMOON‑UR‑RASHID Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Punjab
Decided Date
Case No. 648/1486 of 1981, decided on 4th December, 1982.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Punjab
Bench Members N/A
Parties MAMOON‑UR‑RASHID Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION
Primary Law Civil service‑, JUDGMENT
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑, JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MAMOON‑UR‑RASHID Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service‑ JUDGMENT

Representation

  • Haroon‑ur‑Rashid for Appellant.
  • Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑PayRevision of Pay Scales‑Option to be exercised‑Should not be conditional‑Official opting for National Pay Scales introduced in 1977 but considering old pay scales more beneficial and kept on drawing same regularly‑Option beset with many riders in order to gain benefits from both ends‑Such option, held, rightly not treated as proper option. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Mr. Mamoon‑ur‑Rashid, Headmaster, Government Pak Land Middle School, Shad Bagh, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, and District Education Officer, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to fix appellants pay in Revised National Pay Scales and respondent No. 2 be directed to restore Dearness Allowances permissible to him under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Headmaster, Government Pak Land Middle School, Shad Bagh, which was nationalised in 1972. He was drawing his old pay scale in 1977, when Revised National Pay Scales were introduced. The appellant opted for Revised National Pay Scales in 1977.

4. The grievance of the appellant is that he has not been treated as an optee for Revised National Pay Scales and his representation etc., has been rejected. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the appellant himself and have perused the parawise comments and have also heard the learned District Attorney assisted by representative of the Department.

6. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that he did opt for the Revised National Pay Scales, a fact which is being denied by the respondents.

7. We have looked into the record of this case and find that his application Annexure `B' was diarised in the register there. We accept the Contention that he opted for the Revised National Pay Scales in 1977.

8. For this matter we have now looked into Annexure `B' as a valid document duly diarised in the register but find that the document itself is not a complete option as lot of conditions have been attached by the appellant while making this request to the Government. We have also seen the prescribed form by which others of his service were required to give their option in this respect. This form discloses that the optee had only to say that he opts for the Revised‑ National Pay Scales or not. In this manner Annexure Bon which reliance has been placed cannot be considered a regular request as prescribed by the Department for opting the National Pay Scales, 1977. It seems that the appellant first of all considered the old pay scales more beneficial to him and kept on drawing the same regularly. His conditional option was beset with many riders in order to gain benefits from both ends. In view of above, we have no alternative but to accept the stand taken by the Department that the appellant has been getting the dearness allowances and additional dearness allowances till todate sanctioned by the Government from time‑to time.

9. The result is that we do not find any merits in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, parties will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Mr. Mamoon‑ur‑Rashid, Headmaster, Government Pak Land Middle School, Shad Bagh, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, and District Education Officer, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to fix appellants pay in Revised National Pay Scales and respondent No. 2 be directed to restore Dearness Allowances permissible to him under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Headmaster, Government Pak Land Middle School, Shad Bagh, which was nationalised in 1972. He was drawing his old pay scale in 1977, when Revised National Pay Scales were introduced. The appellant opted for Revised National Pay Scales in 1977.

4. The grievance of the appellant is that he has not been treated as an optee for Revised National Pay Scales and his representation etc., has been rejected. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the appellant himself and have perused the parawise comments and have also heard the learned District Attorney assisted by representative of the Department.

6. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that he did opt for the Revised National Pay Scales, a fact which is being denied by the respondents.

7. We have looked into the record of this case and find that his application Annexure `B' was diarised in the register there. We accept the Contention that he opted for the Revised National Pay Scales in 1977.

8. For this matter we have now looked into Annexure `B' as a valid document duly diarised in the register but find that the document itself is not a complete option as lot of conditions have been attached by the appellant while making this request to the Government. We have also seen the prescribed form by which others of his service were required to give their option in this respect. This form discloses that the optee had only to say that he opts for the Revised‑ National Pay Scales or not. In this manner Annexure Bon which reliance has been placed cannot be considered a regular request as prescribed by the Department for opting the National Pay Scales, 1977. It seems that the appellant first of all considered the old pay scales more beneficial to him and kept on drawing the same regularly. His conditional option was beset with many riders in order to gain benefits from both ends. In view of above, we have no alternative but to accept the stand taken by the Department that the appellant has been getting the dearness allowances and additional dearness allowances till todate sanctioned by the Government from time‑to time.

9. The result is that we do not find any merits in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, parties will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.