2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MAQBOOL AHMAD BHUTTA Versus SECRETARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT and others
| Citation | 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD BHUTTA Versus SECRETARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MAQBOOL AHMAD BHUTTA Versus SECRETARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Withdrawal of Project Allowance
Petitioners had voiced their grievance against the withdrawal of Project Allowance to the employees working in the project
Plea of Deputy Project Manager of the project was that Project Allowance to the petitioner was denied because Government of Punjab had decided that such allowance was admissible only when there was an approval of Chief Minister
Petitioners according to relevant Part "C" of P.C-1 fell in the category of staff entitled to receive the Project Allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month
Allowance which had already been accorded in P. C-1, could not be withdrawn merely on the pretext that such allowance required approval of Chief Minister
Stance of authorities appeared to be contrary as notification reflected that the Project Allowance was sanctioned by the Governor to the various officers/employees and it was not approved by Chief Minister
Equal pay for equal work and an allowance was admissible to an employee, vesting to the duties, which such employee performed
Person performing duties in the project was entitled to Project Allowance and there could be no discrimination
Authority had already recommended Project Allowance to the petitioner, but the matter had not been decided
High Court observed that it would be in the fitness of things that at the first instance, the petitioner be directed to approach the Government for rederessel of their grievance
Order accordingly. Malik Muhammad Ramzan Khalid, Addl. A.-G. along with Malik Tassaduq Hussain, Deputy Project Manager, SPBUSP in Person.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.
The petitioners have voiced their grievance through this writ petition, against the withdrawal of the project allowance to the employees working in the project namely, "Southern Punjab Basic Urban Services Project".
2. Malik Tassaduq Hussain, Deputy Project Manager, SPBUSP states that project allowance to the petitioner was denied, because Government of Punjab has decided that such allowance is admissible only when there is an approval of Chief Minister. Relevant part of Part `C' of P.C.-1 (annexed with this petition as annex-D) reflects as under:
(vi) Project allowance to PC, Dy. PCs, PMs and other Government employees working in the project will be paid out of incremental operational cost as under:- Project Coordinator @ Rs.25,000 p.m., Dy. PCs Rs.15,000 p.m., Monitoring evaluation, Accounts and Budget personal @ 12,500 p.m., Project Mangers @ Rs.10,000 p.m. and other staff @ Rs.5,000 p.m.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners fall in the category of "other staff" and for that reason they are entitled to receive the project allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month. The allowance, which has already been accorded in P.C.-I, cannot be withdrawn merely on the pretext that such allowance requires approval of Chief Minister. The stance of the respondents appears to be contradictory as Notification No. SO. Budget (LG)I-20/2005, dated 16-9-2006 reflects that the project allowance was sanctioned by the Governor to the various officers/employees and it was not approved by Chief Minister.
4. It is settled principle of law that equal pay for equal work and an allowance is admissible to an employee, vesting to the duties, which such employee performs. The person performing duties in a project is entitled to project allowance and there can be no discrimination.
5. Malik Tassaduq Hussain, Deputy Project Manager, SPBUSP has already recommended project allowance to the petitioner but the matter has not as yet been decided. It will be in the fitness of things that at the first instance, the petitioner be directed to approach the Government for redressal of their grievance. The petitioners will file an application along with recommendation of Malik Tassaduq Hussain, Deputy Project Manager, SPBUSP to the Secretary to Government of Punjab who on receipt of the application will decide the same within the parameters of law, within a period of six weeks from receipt of application. The petitioners, however, will be at liberty to re-agitate the matter in this Court, if the question of project allowance is not decided within the parameters of law. Disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./M-353/L Order accordingly.