2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through D.S., Lahore and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 16 others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through D.S., Lahore and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 16 others |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Railways Ways and Works Manual, 1959-- |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Railways Ways and Works Manual, 1959-- as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through D.S., Lahore and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 16 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Masood-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th September, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28-11-1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 11741 of 1994).
Para. 513(a)
Big city allowance, grant of
Dispute between the parties was with regard to grant of big city allowance
Claim of the civil servants was that as their headquarter was within the limits of city therefore, they were entitled to big city allowance
Authorities asserted that since the headquarter of the civil servants was outside the municipal limits of the city, civil servants were not entitled to the allowance
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction accepted the claim of the civil servants-- Authorities without denying the location of the headquarter of the civil servants being within the limits of municipal corporation, had contended that the civil servants were not entitled to the big city allowance
High Court repelled the contention of Authorities with the observation that no policy or instruction was shown in support of the contention that the big city allowance was not admissible to the civil servants
No substantial question of law of public importance being involved in the case Supreme Court maintained the judgment by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.
This appeal by the leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment dated 28-11-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in a Constitution petition.
2. The respondents are employed in Pakistan Railways. They were posted in Gang, No.9 with their headquarter at Therri Sansi and on 7-6-1992 their headquarter was shifted to Gujranwala. The respondents having become entitled to big city allowance were paid the said allowance but later vide order dated 14-7-1994, the same was withdrawn from the date of its sanction. The respondents being aggrieved of the order of withdrawal of big city allowance, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter. The appellants in the comments submitted to the writ petition in the High Court pleaded that headquarter of respondents was still Therri Sansi which was out of the territorial limits of Guiranwala Municipal Corporation and they were not entitled to the grant of big city allowance. However, it was admitted that big city allowance was admissible to the railways employees if their headquarter was situated within the municipal limits of the city. In the present case, an admission was made on behalf of the appellants in the High Court that the headquarter of the respondents was indeed shifted to Gujranwala city but no other change in place of their duty was made, therefore, they would not be entitled to the grant of big city allowance under Para 5.13(a) of Ways and Works Manual 1959.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants without denying the location of the headquarter of the respondents within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala, has urged in the light of the contention raised in the High Court that respondents were not entailed to the big city allowance. The learned Judge in the High Court repelled the above contention with the observation that no policy or instruction was shown to contend that the big city allowance was not admissible to the respondents.
4. We do not find any substantial question of law of public importance involved in this case for interference and while maintaining the impugned judgment dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. M.H./P-86/S Appeal dismissed.