1982 PLP 516 (SCMR)

SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The Province of Punjab has filed a petition which is expressed to be under section 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981, but is in fact and substance a petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated the 12th of July, 1981 whereby the benefit of Circular of the Government allowing four advance increments to certain incumbents of the designated posts was made available to group of Private Secretaries employed in the High Court, Lahore, who were not so designated in the Circular.

2. The benefit of four advance increments was made available to "the existing incumbents of all the posts of Stenographers, viz. Steno‑typists, Junior Scale Stenographers Grade‑I, Junior Scale Stenographers Grade‑II, Stenographers Senior Scale Stenographers and Personal Assistants in the Secretariat as well as Field Officers." The respondents who are 21 in number and posted as Private Secretaries in the High Court claim the benefit of the Circular on the ground that they were employed and discharging the duties of a Stenographer and were consequently entitled to the benefit conferred.

3. The Service Tribunal examined "the matter thoroughly in the light of duties of the appellants and of the other Private Secretaries in the Punjab Government's administration" and came, to the conclusion that "this issue has to be seen not in the light of the status and grade of Private Secretaries but the actual duties performed by the two broad categories of persons holding these posts." The Tribunal adopted the criteria of usage and practice and held that the "Private Secretaries available to High Court Judge is nothing but a glorified Judgment‑cum‑Personal Assistant, glorified by the fact of being in N. P. S.

16. Otherwise, in the nature of his duties, as well as in the quantum of such duties he is no different from the Judgment writers."

4. The learned counsel for the Province has contended that the benefit of four advance increments was conferred on a specified group of officials holding one of the designated posts. By the express inclusion of the designated officials there was the implied but necessary exclusion of others. Besides, according to the learned counsel, pile very ground which has been made the basis by the Tribunal for allowing them the increments could as well be distinguishing feature. They were placed in a higher scale as compared to all others dealt with by the Circular under examination. Finally it is contended that where the conferment of the benefit was by designation, the extension on the benefit by relating them to the duties as such, irrespective of other considerations relevant in service matters, was not justified.

5. Sh. Zia Ullah entered a caveat and submitted that the petition as framed is not competent; that interpretation of a letter involves no question of law much less of public importance; and that the whole dispute concerns the benefit of a limited number of 21 Private Secretaries and there is no question of law or of public importance as provided under Articles 212(3) of the Constitution which may justify the grant of leave.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that the question of law raised in the appeal is substantial. It relates to the power and jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to so interpret a Circular of the Government as to extend the benefit conferred to a non‑designated group by reference to the duties discharged by it, subordinating altogether, the considerations of pay scale and status. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. No Security. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents. The order impugned in this appeal shall remain in abeyance, meanwhile. The appeal to be made ready for hearing at an early date. Leave granted.