2000 PLP 474 (PLC)
AMANULLAH and 9 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 7 others
| Citation | 2000 PLP 474 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | AMANULLAH and 9 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 7 others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 474 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 474 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 474 (PLC) (AMANULLAH and 9 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 7 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Saeed Khan for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
- Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 4th May, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 2-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 25, 199 & 212-- Voluntary Retirement Scheme
Constitutional petition, abatement of-- Grievance of petitioners who were employees of various Rice Mills under Control of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan, was that though Voluntary Retirement Scheme had been framed by Authorities in respect of Project Directors, Deputy Directors had been denied said facility and petitioners who belonged to said category had been unfairly discriminated against-- Validity
Project Directors being a class apart from Deputy Project Directors, it could not be said that facilities which had been made available to Project Directors should ,also be made applicable to other categories of employees
Article 25 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) had not prohibited or forbidden reasonable classification
Corporation was a Corporation owned and controlled by Federal Government and persons serving under it had been declared to be civil servants under S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Provisions of S. 2-A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973 being applicable to case of petitioners, proceedings pending before High Court would be deemed to have been abated in view of Art. 212 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973).
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and
8. Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 4th May, 2000. This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.4231 of 1993, 4881 of 1993, 4598 of 1993, 6759 of 1993 and 15343 of 1993, in all of which same questions fail for determination.
2. The petitioners in these petitions are employees of various rice mills under the control of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan. Their grievance is that though a Scheme known as Voluntary Retirement Scheme has been framed by the respondents in respect of the Project Directors, the Deputy Project Directors have been denied this facility.
3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have been unfairly discriminated against.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of these petitions which has force. The objection is that respondent No.4 is a Corporation owned and controlled by the Federal Government and the persons serving under it have been declared to be civil servants by insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act. Admittedly, section 2‑A is applicable to the present cases and such proceedings pending before this Court are deemed to have abated in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. Even otherwise, on merits, the petitioners did not have any case. Admittedly, the Project Directors are a class apart from the Deputy Project Directors. It cannot, therefore, be argued with any success that the facilities which have been made available to the Project Directors should also be made applicable to the other categories of employees. Article 25 of the Constitution does not prohibit or forbid reasonable classification. In view of what has been said above, all these petitions are `I dismissed leaving the parties‑ to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A‑67/L Petition dismissed