1999SCMR336 (PLP)

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.

This order shall dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 1227-L to 1278-L of 1998 and C.M.A. No. 865-L of 1998 in Civil Petition No. 1227-L of 1998, arising out of the consolidated order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal" dated 3-6-1998, passed in Appeal No. 1105(L) to 1156(L) of 1997.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioners herein are railway guards working at Lahore under the control of the respondent and were placed in BPS-8, prior to 9-11-1984. Their pay scale was upgraded with effect from 9-11-1984 from BPS-8 to BPS-11. It is alleged that on enhancement of pay scale, some railway employees, namely, Faiz Bukhsh, Abdul Khaliq, Malik Fazal Din, Shuja-ud-Din and Barkat Ali, working in the same capacity as the petitioner, were granted one increment over and above the fixation of pay in the higher pay scale while the same was refused to the petitioner and several others. Some of the aggrieved employees, 21 in number, move the Punjab Labour Court at Multan and the matter ultimately came up before this Court, which in its judgment reported as Pakistan Railways v. Shaukat Ali Hamdani and others (1996 PLC 595 (Labour), inter alia, observed:

"That department itself had placed construction on above paragraph (H) in the manner in which the above respondents had claimed inasmuch as the increments were granted under aforesaid paragraph (H) to other employees, namely, Faiz Bakhsh, Abdul Khaliq, Malik Fazal Din, Shujauddin and Barkat Ali, who were placed in the same position as the above respondents and denial of the same to the above respondents would constitute discrimination being violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. " Refer Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan (1996 SCMR 1185), wherein Ajmal Mian, J. (now Hon'ble Chief Justice), in the majority judgment observed:-- "We may observe that if the Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants, who' may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum." Here, the Tribunal declined to grant relief to the petitioners on the erroneous assumption that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shaukat Ali Hamdani and others (supra) was based on legal technicalities and niceties. Needless to say that the decision rendered by this Court even if "based on legal technicalities and niceties" as discourteously described by the learned members of the Tribunal, is binding on all Courts in Pakistan as contemplated by Article 189 of the Constitution. Appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the learned members of the Tribunal, who wrote the said judgment, will be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. At this stage, a copy of this order be transmitted to Messrs Nasim Sabir Syed and Muhammad Hayatullah Khan Sumbal to enable them to explain their view point at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

3. Ch. Mehdi Khan Mchtab, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners vehemently argued that the Tribunal was wrong in applying the same rules differently to all identically placed employees of Pakistan Railways, granting a particular benefit to one and refusing the same to others by violating the rule of equity under Article 25 of the Constitution. Prima facie there appears e be force in the above submission.

4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above plea. Since a short question of law is involved, the appeal be listed during the month of February, 1999, subject to the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. M.B.A./M-264/S Leave granted.