Discrimination

Petitioners had earlier approached this Court via writ petitions, seeking regularization of their services, which were converted into representations and forwarded to the respondents for decision

However, shortly after rejecting the representations, the petitioners were verbally terminated without any notice or written order

Pertinently, several similarly placed daily wage employees had been regularized by the respondents in the light of orders passed by High Court in other constitutional petitions, whereas the petitioners were arbitrarily excluded for grant of said benefit, which amounted to discrimination and violation of the Art.25A of the Constitution

High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal declaring the verbal termination of the petitioners to be illegal and unlawful, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service as "permanent workmen"

Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.

If any act of Executives is found tainted with mala fide or discrimination, same cannot be allowed to continue.

Petitioner/National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was aggrieved of direction passed by High Court to regularize services of respondent/employee

Validity

Petitioner/NADRA provided job opportunities to disabled persons based on their ability and capacity to work

If a disabled person, initially appointed on a contractual basis, had performed his duties for a considerable period of time to the satisfaction of his superiors/department, then proprietary demanded that he should be regularized as a permanent employee so that he could reap all employment benefits, rather than being dragged on contractual basis perpetually

Respondent/employee was only three days short of completing required one year of service, but was denied regularization, while other similarly situated employees, who were short by a greater margin than the respondent/employee were accommodated as directed by High Court without any challenge to that judgment

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality or perversity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Authorities were aggrieved of direction issued by High Court in favour of respondents/civil servants regarding upgradation and redesignation of posts

Validity

Upgradation of a post is not a vested right, rather it stems from a policy decision intended to benefit a particular set of employees under the scheme embedded in the policy

Upgradation cannot be mixed up with promotion

In case of upgradation, employee continues to hold same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to mitigate distress associated with stagnation due to lack of progression of promotional avenues

Once Government announces a policy, it is also responsible for enforcing such policy across the board to accord benefit of policy to all those who are eligible under it and may benefit because of it

Court cannot interfere in policy making domain of government but when a widespread and comprehensive policy is announced to benefit employees, it should be implemented bigheartedly and generously, without adding any ifs and buts or discrimination that can stifle main objective of the policy

Similar laws, rules and polices should apply uniformly to all in similar situations, without any discrimination or distinction between one employee and another within the sphere of legislation or policy, provided that their status is substantially equivalent and indistinguishable

Even in cases of classification or categorization, such distinctions must not be arbitrary but should be based on reasons, qualities and characteristics that establish an intelligible differentia for those who have been left out of the arena or who have been excluded with clarity regarding the objective sought to be achieved

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Literal connotation of word "discrimination" essentially refers to different treatment of the same kindor class of persons or behaving less favourably towards them

During the course of employment, discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee less favourly or disadvantageously than others without any intelligible differentia

Equal treatment with equal opportunity is a corner stone for an egalitarian society, while acts of discrimination in workplace seriously undermine a harmonious working environment and create unrest among employees discriminated who are deprived of perks and privileges.

Persons may be classified into groups and such groups may be treated differently if there is a reasonable basis for such difference

Principle of equality does not imply or connote that every law must have universal application to all class of persons

Oscillating or wavering needs of dissimilar sets of persons, which may have little in common, can be treated differently on logical perspicacity

For such classification to meet standards of fairness, self-actualization of two vital constituents must be fulfilled

Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which may judiciously distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and second, the differentia must have a logical and sensible nexus with the object sought to be achieved

Expression "intelligible differentia" insinuates an act of exodus capable of making sense.

Petitioners / civil servants were aggrieved of the fact that they were not given health allowance which was being given to devolved employees in same department

Appeals filed by petitioners/civil servants were dismissed by Service Tribunal

Validity

Petitioners/civil servants were not in the category of devolved employees who became employees of the Province by virtue of 18th Amendment to the Constitution

Petitioners/civil servants were employees of the Province since the beginning, whereas benefit of allowance was only extended to devolved employees who were covered under section 2 (b) of Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011

No such law or rule was ever promulgated by Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for extending same benefits to originally employed persons to be treated alike

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

In the impugned judgment, the High Court rightly held that under similar facts and circumstances as well as the same set of allegations and charges the other employees of the Bank were awarded lesser punishment by the Disciplinary Cases Committee of the Bank, and no reason whatsoever had been assigned to single out the respondent who had been awarded the major punishment of dismissal from service which amounted to clear discrimination

Nothing had been brought on record to show that respondent was directly responsible or had committed any gross misconduct or negligence in respect of the allegations as contained in the charge sheet/show cause notice, whereas, the guilt regarding allegations and charges in the instant case had been duly accepted through confessional statement by another employee of the bank i.e. the Branch Manager against whom a criminal case was also registered, however, such aspect had been totally ignored while awarding the major punishment of dismissal from service, which, on the face of it, was otherwise not commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt and the role assigned to respondent

Neither in the charge sheet nor in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Cases Committee there was any direct charge of misconduct, fraud, embezzlement of fraud or even the connivance of respondent with the offence committed by the Branch Manager who had accepted his guilt and entire responsibility, therefore, on the allegation of not complying with office circulars to handle the ATM cash feeding and allowing the Branch Manager, who was reportedly performing the said duty as joint custodian, major penalty of dismissal from service was not only harsh but also disproportionate to the allegations/charge besides being discriminatory

Impugned judgment of the High Court by which it modified the penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent to down gradation by one step in his pay scale was upheld

Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Appellant was daughter of deceased civil servant and was appointed under Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989

Appointment of appellant was terminated after she contracted marriage

Validity

Reasonable classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and must bear rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by law

Exclusion of married daughters, despite Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, itself is inclusive and silence on marital status lacks any rational basis

No intelligible differentia is discernible between a married son and a married daughter that would justify such exclusion in light of the underlying purpose of Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which is to provide compassionate economic relief to bereaved family of a deceased or incapacitated civil servant

Such arbitrary classification is not only unreasonable but plainly unconstitutional, offending the guarantees of equality (Article 25), non-discrimination in public service (Article 27), and the right to dignity (Article 14)

Such act of authorities had undermined expectations of deceased civil servants whose families were assured of lawful security under the compassionate appointment framework

Supreme Court declared clarification of authorities and letter dated 28-04-2023, whereby married daughters were excluded from compassionate appointment under Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, to be discriminatory, ultra vires, issued without lawful authority, and incompatible with Constitutional guarantees and international legal obligations

Supreme Court directed respondent/authorities to restore appointment of appellant with all back-benefits and set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Supreme Court reaffirmed that all judicial and administrative authorities bear a Constitutional responsibility to adopt gender-sensitive and gender-neutral language; that this was not a mere formality but reflected a substantive commitment to the values of dignity, equality, and autonomy guaranteed to all citizens under Articles 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution

Supreme Court observed that the Judiciary must lead by example, ensuring that the words used to interpret and apply law did not themselves had become instruments of exclusion

Appeal was allowed.

Appellant was daughter of deceased civil servant and was appointed under Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989

Appointment of appellant was terminated after she contracted marriage

Validity

Reasonable classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and must bear rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by law

Exclusion of married daughters, despite Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, itself is inclusive and silence on marital status lacks any rational basis

No intelligible differentia is discernible between a married son and a married daughter that would justify such exclusion in light of the underlying purpose of Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which is to provide compassionate economic relief to bereaved family of a deceased or incapacitated civil servant

Such arbitrary classification is not only unreasonable but plainly unconstitutional, offending the guarantees of equality (Article 25), non-discrimination in public service (Article 27), and the right to dignity (Article 14)

Such act of authorities had undermined expectations of deceased civil servants whose families were assured of lawful security under the compassionate appointment framework

Supreme Court declared clarification of authorities and letter dated 28-04-2023, whereby married daughters were excluded from compassionate appointment under Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, to be discriminatory, ultra vires, issued without lawful authority, and incompatible with Constitutional guarantees and international legal obligations

Supreme Court directed respondent/authorities to restore appointment of appellant with all back-benefits and set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Supreme Court reaffirmed that all judicial and administrative authorities bear a Constitutional responsibility to adopt gender-sensitive and gender-neutral language; that this was not a mere formality but reflected a substantive commitment to the values of dignity, equality, and autonomy guaranteed to all citizens under Articles 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution

Supreme Court observed that the Judiciary must lead by example, ensuring that the words used to interpret and apply law did not themselves had become instruments of exclusion

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioner/National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was aggrieved of direction passed by High Court to regularize services of respondent/employee

Validity

Petitioner/NADRA provided job opportunities to disabled persons based on their ability and capacity to work

If a disabled person, initially appointed on a contractual basis, had performed his duties for a considerable period of time to the satisfaction of his superiors/department, then proprietary demanded that he should be regularized as a permanent employee so that he could reap all employment benefits, rather than being dragged on contractual basis perpetually

Respondent/employee was only three days short of completing required one year of service, but was denied regularization, while other similarly situated employees, who were short by a greater margin than the respondent/employee were accommodated as directed by High Court without any challenge to that judgment

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality or perversity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Persons may be classified into groups and such groups may be treated differently if there is a reasonable basis for such difference

Principle of equality does not imply or connote that every law must have universal application to all class of persons

Oscillating or wavering needs of dissimilar sets of persons, which may have little in common, can be treated differently on logical perspicacity

For such classification to meet standards of fairness, self-actualization of two vital constituents must be fulfilled

Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which may judiciously distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and second, the differentia must have a logical and sensible nexus with the object sought to be achieved

Expression "intelligible differentia" insinuates an act of exodus capable of making sense.

Petitioners / civil servants were aggrieved of the fact that they were not given health allowance which was being given to devolved employees in same department

Appeals filed by petitioners/civil servants were dismissed by Service Tribunal

Validity

Petitioners/civil servants were not in the category of devolved employees who became employees of the Province by virtue of 18th Amendment to the Constitution

Petitioners/civil servants were employees of the Province since the beginning, whereas benefit of allowance was only extended to devolved employees who were covered under section 2 (b) of Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011

No such law or rule was ever promulgated by Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for extending same benefits to originally employed persons to be treated alike

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Literal connotation of word "discrimination" essentially refers to different treatment of the same kindor class of persons or behaving less favourably towards them

During the course of employment, discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee less favourly or disadvantageously than others without any intelligible differentia

Equal treatment with equal opportunity is a corner stone for an egalitarian society, while acts of discrimination in workplace seriously undermine a harmonious working environment and create unrest among employees discriminated who are deprived of perks and privileges.

Authorities were aggrieved of direction issued by High Court in favour of respondents/civil servants regarding upgradation and redesignation of posts

Validity

Upgradation of a post is not a vested right, rather it stems from a policy decision intended to benefit a particular set of employees under the scheme embedded in the policy

Upgradation cannot be mixed up with promotion

In case of upgradation, employee continues to hold same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to mitigate distress associated with stagnation due to lack of progression of promotional avenues

Once Government announces a policy, it is also responsible for enforcing such policy across the board to accord benefit of policy to all those who are eligible under it and may benefit because of it

Court cannot interfere in policy making domain of government but when a widespread and comprehensive policy is announced to benefit employees, it should be implemented bigheartedly and generously, without adding any ifs and buts or discrimination that can stifle main objective of the policy

Similar laws, rules and polices should apply uniformly to all in similar situations, without any discrimination or distinction between one employee and another within the sphere of legislation or policy, provided that their status is substantially equivalent and indistinguishable

Even in cases of classification or categorization, such distinctions must not be arbitrary but should be based on reasons, qualities and characteristics that establish an intelligible differentia for those who have been left out of the arena or who have been excluded with clarity regarding the objective sought to be achieved

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

In the impugned judgment, the High Court rightly held that under similar facts and circumstances as well as the same set of allegations and charges the other employees of the Bank were awarded lesser punishment by the Disciplinary Cases Committee of the Bank, and no reason whatsoever had been assigned to single out the respondent who had been awarded the major punishment of dismissal from service which amounted to clear discrimination

Nothing had been brought on record to show that respondent was directly responsible or had committed any gross misconduct or negligence in respect of the allegations as contained in the charge sheet/show cause notice, whereas, the guilt regarding allegations and charges in the instant case had been duly accepted through confessional statement by another employee of the bank i.e. the Branch Manager against whom a criminal case was also registered, however, such aspect had been totally ignored while awarding the major punishment of dismissal from service, which, on the face of it, was otherwise not commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt and the role assigned to respondent

Neither in the charge sheet nor in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Cases Committee there was any direct charge of misconduct, fraud, embezzlement of fraud or even the connivance of respondent with the offence committed by the Branch Manager who had accepted his guilt and entire responsibility, therefore, on the allegation of not complying with office circulars to handle the ATM cash feeding and allowing the Branch Manager, who was reportedly performing the said duty as joint custodian, major penalty of dismissal from service was not only harsh but also disproportionate to the allegations/charge besides being discriminatory

Impugned judgment of the High Court by which it modified the penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent to down gradation by one step in his pay scale was upheld

Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Both the parties preferred their respective appeals, however, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed being not maintainable owing to inapplicability of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA, 2012) to the Civil Aviation Authority and the appeal of the respondent-Department was allowed

Validity

While exercising constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot direct the executive or any other institution working thereunder to make a specific policy relating to regularization of service of the employees of the concerned departments or to direct them to regularize the services of any kind of employee without any backing of law and policy

However, High Court may intervene and strike down any policy, which is found to be contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution

Neither the petitioners nor the respondents had brought before High Court any enactment or policy for regularization of services of the petitioners, thus, in absence of any statutory backing, High Court was unable to direct the respondents to regularize service of the petitioners

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances, with the expectation that while keeping in view long service and that too without any complaint, the petitioners could not go elsewhere for job, thus, they deserved a sympathetic consideration by the department concerned either by enactment or by framing a policy for regularization or at least place their cases for regularization.

Discrimination was asserted by the petitioner/taxpayer who acquired the securities in the year 2011 and disposed them of in the year 2023

Validity

Different rates of tax were provided against variously prescribed periods of holdings of securities, where each of the category manifested diverse periods

This was the pattern of rates prescribed for different period of holdings since addition of S. 37A from 2010

Provisioning of different slabs for retention of securities was not a novel or discriminatory practice

Categorization of slabs for holdings and prescribing rate of tax for each slab met the criterion of providing intelligible differentia, distinguishing classes of securities held and varied retention period prescribed in the context of concession in rate of tax

Element of commonness amongst each category of securities held, root cause of discrimination, was conspicuous by its absence

Though there was no occasion to comment on the rational and efficacy of the policy, still ex-facie offering of discounted rates of tax regarding securities acquired on or after first day of July 2022 in fact encouraged and incentivized the investment, which satisfied the test of proximity between rationality and objective intended to be achieved encouraging roll-over of securities / investment

Thus plea of discrimination was misconceived

No case for interference was made out

Constitutional petition , being merit-less, was dismissed.

Exclusion of insurance bond/guarantee as a form of security by procuring agencies of Federal Government and Provincial Government of Punjab with respect to performance or additional performance/quality assurance guarantee was permissible in terms of lawful discretion of a procuring agency provided it was specifically stated in SBDs

Bidders who participated in bidding process, subject to bidding documents, had no vested right to tender securities in a particular form of their choice that was not part of SBDs of a procuring agency as they knowingly had participated in a bidding process in accordance with the terms and conditions of SBDs

Petitioners failed to make out a case of discrimination as exclusion of insurance bond/guarantee indiscriminately applied to all bidders with reference to a particular bidding process

Where facts emanating from contractual disputes were admitted, constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution could be exercised

Act of exclusion of insurance bond/guarantee as a form of security with respect to performance or additional performance/quality assurance security by a procuring agency falling under Federal or Provincial Government of Punjab was not in conflict with the decision of ECNEC

High Court directed respondents/procuring agencies to issue fresh notice to each petitioner to furnish security in the requisite amount and form mentioned in applicable SBDs in all pending contracts, failing which each petitioner could be dealt with in accordance with the terms and conditions of applicable contract

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Order of termination in post remand proceedings during the operation/subsistence of injunctive order of Labour Court and High Court

Legality

Regularizations of other daily wage employees

Discrimination

Mala fide

Alteration in record

Scope

Respondents daily wage employees claimed their regularization against permanent posts

Plea of the petitioners was that since the services of the respondents had been terminated, therefore, they could not be regularized

Validity

Termination of service of daily wage employees, who had attained the status of permanent workmen after the expiry of the requisite period, without adhering to the procedure laid down under S.O. 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was illegal and could not impede their claim for regularization

Evidence of mala fide on the part of the employer, such as alteration of attendance records to show unauthorized absence or discriminatory treatment in regularizing similarly situated employees, could be taken into consideration by the courts while deciding the grievance petition of the affected employees

Termination letter of respondents showed that the same related to promotion of another employee, however, on the margin of the said document a note as to termination of respondent had been given

Petitioners were not able to produce termination order of one of the respondents, which cast serious doubts about the conduct of the petitioners

Any action taken by an employer against an employee during the subsistence of an interim injunction or a status quo order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction is subject to scrutiny by the said court and cannot be used to prejudice the employee's rights in the ongoing proceedings

Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be upset in Constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

During meeting with employer company, many other employees, along with respondent voiced reservations against the policies of the petitioner-company but initiation of proceedings against respondent alone proved that he was discriminated which approach being violative of Art.25 of the Constitution could not be approved

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Article 25 of the Constitution allows for reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out and such differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

Allegation of financial/management crisis in the previous tenures of some selected candidates without any specific nomination

Effect

Contention of the petitioner was that favourite candidates had been selected without even calling him for interview or issuing him a rejection letter

Validity

No question over the constitution of Search Committees or on any of their members had been raised

No specific violation of law, policy or merit was attributed to Search Committees but only vague and general allegations had been levelled by the petitioner

Advertisement for the appointments in question reflected that only short-listed/eligible candidates were to be interviewed by the respective Search Committees

None of the candidates, in whose earlier tenures universities had undergone severe financial and management crisis, had been named specifically in the petition or arguments

None of the selected candidates, who were going to retire in few days, had been specified in the petition and the advertisement itself showed the maximum age of 65 years for the applicants

Appointments of the VCs had already been made, thus, the petitioner was at liberty to exercise his right to information before the concerned forum in accordance with law and assail any such appointment on specific grounds depicting violation of any provision of law or the applicable policy while impleading the V.C. concerned

No room for a roving inquiry or fishing expedition was available to the petitioner

When petitioner was not called for interview, he filed the constitutional petition challenging the selection criteria, however, he ought to have challenged the selection criteria notified by the Government before applying for the post in question and not after having been rejected

In the absence of such timely challenge, it could be presumed that he accepted the criteria to be valid and expressed no reservation against it

V.Cs., who had earned their Ph.D. degrees from the top ranked institutions of the world, were expected that they should, while benefitting from their rich international exposure, endeavor to promote such excellence in the institutions headed by them, thus, selection criteria was not arbitrary and discriminatory but based on rational nexus with the object of classification

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Challenging prosecution on the ground of discrimination cannot be a complete valid defense to absolve an accused from criminal liability arising from his actions or inactions

Any person charged for an offence is answerable for his own acts or omission and has to defend himself in a trial for the offence with which he has been charged.

Petitioners alleged that the BPS of ASI, HC and Constables in other federal departments had been up-graded from BPS-09, BPS-07 and BPS-05 to BPS-11, BPS-09 and BPS-07, respectively, however, ASI, HC and Constables Serving in FIA were still in BPS-9, BPS-07 and BPS-05, respectively, which was promoting a sense of despair and discrimination

Petition was filed to consider the petitioners for up-gradation to the posts of Constable from BPS-5 to 7, Head Constable from BPS-7 to 9 and ASI from BPS-9 to 11, respectively, by declaring the inaction on the part of respondents as illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority

Held, that up-gradation of a post is not a vested right, rather it stems from a policy decision intended to benefit a particular set of employees under the scheme embedded in the policy

Up-gradation cannot be mixed up with promotion

In the case of up-gradation, the employee continues to hold the same post without any change in his duties, but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to mitigate the distress associated with stagnation due to a lack of progression or promotional avenues

Once the Government announces a policy, it is also responsible for enforcing such policy across the board to accord the benefit of the policy to all those who are eligible under it and may be benefited because of it

No doubt, the Court cannot interfere in the policymaking domain of the Government, but when a widespread and comprehensive policy is announced to benefit employees, it should be implemented bigheartedly and generously, without adding any ifs and buts or discrimination that could stifle the main objective of the policy

In the present cases, not only the department of the respondents fully supported the up-gradation, but also communicated with the concerned quarter in order to espouse the interest of their employees

Equal treatment with equal opportunity is a cornerstone for an egalitarian society, while acts of discrimination in the workplace seriously undermine a harmonious working environment and create unrest among employees discriminated who are deprived of perks and privileges

Up-gradation could not be construed as promotion, but could be granted through a policy

Petitioners had successfully established that they had been treated discriminately by the respondents in the matter of up-gradation of posts, which act of the respondents offended the mandate of Art. 25 of the Constitution

Resultantly petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to up-grade/re-designate the posts of Constable, Head Constable and ASI from BPS-5 to BPS-7, from BPS-7 to BPS-9 and from BPS-9 to 11, respectively.

It only comes into operation when some persons are granted a benefit in accordance with law but others, similarly placed and in similar circumstances are denied that benefit

But where a person gains, or is granted, a benefit illegally, other persons cannot plead, nor can the courts accept such a plea, that the same benefit must be allowed to them also in violation of law.

Two allowances in question were also drawn by the respondents but later payment of such allowances was discontinued by the Government on the ground that the employees of the Solicitor Office were not part of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, not entitled for such allowances

Legality

High Court rightly allowed said allowances to the respondent by holding that that the classification so made by the Government qua granting of said two allowances to specified employees while denying the same to other employees who were also posted inside the walled premises of the Civil Secretariat, could not be termed as reasonable and amounted to offend the principle of equity before the law

High Court correctly noted that the office of the Solicitor having a separate entity in the Law Department was situated within the premises of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, the employees of the Solicitor Office were similarly placed and were entitled to the grant of special allowance and utility allowance

Counsel for the Provincial Government could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the High Court, which was maintained

Resultantly, appeal was dismissed.

It only comes into operation when some persons are granted a benefit in accordance with law but others, similarly placed and in similar circumstances are denied that benefit

But where a person gains, or is granted, a benefit illegally, other persons cannot plead, nor can the courts accept such a plea, that the same benefit must be allowed to them also in violation of law.

Two allowances in question were also drawn by the respondents but later payment of such allowances was discontinued by the Government on the ground that the employees of the Solicitor Office were not part of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, not entitled for such allowances

Legality

High Court rightly allowed said allowances to the respondent by holding that that the classification so made by the Government qua granting of said two allowances to specified employees while denying the same to other employees who were also posted inside the walled premises of the Civil Secretariat, could not be termed as reasonable and amounted to offend the principle of equity before the law

High Court correctly noted that the office of the Solicitor having a separate entity in the Law Department was situated within the premises of the Civil Secretariat, therefore, the employees of the Solicitor Office were similarly placed and were entitled to the grant of special allowance and utility allowance

Counsel for the Provincial Government could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the High Court, which was maintained

Resultantly, appeal was dismissed.

Petitioners were aggrieved of decision of Provincial Cabinet to procure wheat from a particular area in a large quantity, for which there were no arrangement of storage

Validity

There was issue of discrimination in grant of subsidies only to the farmers of the particular area from where wheat was to be procured

Equality before law was guaranteed by the Constitution and discrimination on arbitrary grounds was prohibited

Differential treatment of farmers, where some benefited from free water for irrigation while others incurred substantial costs to access water, had raised questions of equity and fairness

Government policy must be inclusive and equitable to all farmers, irrespective of their geographical location or access to natural resources

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside decision of Provincial Cabinet to procure wheat at subsidized rates after allocating Rs. 500 million, as such decision was illegal

High Court directed Provincial Government to divert the amount towards payment of loan and establishment of technical center, town planning and supply of drinking water etc.

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was Member National Industrial Relation Commission and aggrieved of his perks and privileges fixed by authorities, which were less than that of Member National Industrial Relation Commission officiating in Multan Bench

Validity

Petitioner was discriminated against with a person similarly placed in another province

Petitioner was appointed on same terms and conditions of service as that of Members of National Industrial Relation Commission of other provinces

High Court directed the authorities to pay to petitioner pay and allowance equivalent to that paid to the Member of Multan Bench of National Industrial Relation Commission

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner (Pakistani woman) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court with grievance that the respondents (Directorate General of Immigration and passport, Ministry of Interior) declined her husband (an Afghan refugee) a Pakistan Origin Card (POC)

Validity

Although S. 10 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 gives a Pakistani husband the right to get citizenship for his foreigner wife, but denies a Pakistani wife the right to get citizenship for her foreigner husband

However, it was held in the judgments passed in Suo Motu (Gender Equality) case reported as PLD 2008 FSC 1 as well as PLD 2016 Lahore 857 titled Mst. Rukhsana Bibi and others v. Government of Pakistan and others, that denial of such right is discriminatory, negates gender equality and violates Arts. 2-A & 25 of the Constitution

On basis of said judgments a foreign husband was entitled to apply and to be considered by the Authorities for the issuance of POC in accordance with law

High Court directed the respondents (Directorate General of Immigration and passport, Ministry of Interior) to consider the case of the husband (Afghan refugee) of the Pakistani woman for issuance of his Pakistan Origin Card (POC)

Constitution petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioners/ industrialists were aggrieved of denial of exemption from taxes as their units were established after cut-off date of 31-05-2018

Validity

Allowing one set of industries concession in electricity supply i.e. exemption from sales tax and withholding such exemption from another group merely for the reason that it was setup after a particular date had serious effects on their earnings and they might in some circumstances would not be able to compete with each other

Such classification did not qualify test of intelligible differentia and was contrary to Arts. 25 and 18 of the Constitution

Law applying to one person or class of persons may be constitutionally valid if there is sufficient basis or reason for it, as there is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of law made by Parliament or State legislature

Legislature is competent to classify persons or properties into categories and to subject them to different rates of taxes

Exception is that no one is to target incident of taxation in such a way that similarly placed persons are dealt with not only dissimilarly but discriminately

Through legislation in question, all Steel, Ghee and Cooking Oil industries were treated as a separate class and exemption was not extended to supplies of electricity, therefore, there was no element of discrimination in the matter

Provision of Entry No.152 in Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990, was ultra vires the Constitution to the extent of making classification among the industrial, residential and commercial consumers which were established after 31-05-2018

Exemption in supply of electricity was available to all residential, commercial and industrial consumers who had established their units in the Erstwhile FATA / PATA irrespective of date of establishment till the life of Entry No.152 in Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990, except Steel, Ghee or Cooking Oil Industries

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Admittedly, petitioners were discriminated in the matter of grant of up-gradation, because, their counterparts / colleagues, performing same duties with the same designations, were allowed up-gradation to BPS-16

Even minutes of the up-gradation Committee did not speak or refer to their respective computer related qualifications and merely relied upon their designation as Computer Operators/Constables while the petitioners were holding the prescribed qualifications ever since their appointments

Principle of equal protection of law was applicable to the case of petitioners

Moreover, it was the fundamental right of the petitioners that they being equally placed, were treated alike and no intelligible differentia could distinguish the petitioners from those who were allowed up-gradation

Constitution petitions were allowed.

Classification can only be reasonable if it is based on intelligible criteria having nexus to the object sought to be achieved

Classifications created on the basis of a separate class of persons which are similarly placed should not offend fundamental right enshrined in Art. 25 of the Constitution.

Authorities were aggrieved of judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court declaring provision of S. 7E of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, ultra vires the Constitution

Validity

Provision of S. 7E of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, treats increment in value of capital asset as income and resident person cannot be left immersed in the thought of deriving double benefit viz one increase in value of his capital asset and two zero tax

In case an owner of property disposes of his asset, no tax is leviable under S. 7E of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

But beyond six years, he does not pay capital gain tax on such sale, too

Such tax has been levied on notional income but not a notional asset (from which it is deemed to arise)

Legislature has intended to tax an asset apparently lying dormant and not generating an income in cash but indeed capable of increment in value

It is the value addition that S.7E of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, seeks to tax

Notionally the augmentation in value becomes part of taxpayer's income

Provision of S. 7E (2)(d)(i) to (iv) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, does not suffer from vice of discriminatory legislation and does not offend Art.25 of the Constitution

Categories of persons have been carved out in S. 7E (2)(d)(i) to (iv) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which are distinct and apart from general category of taxpayers

Legislature is empowered to create categories of taxpayers and to tax one and not the other

Division Bench of High Court in exercise of appellant jurisdiction set aside judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court

Intra Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Notification No. SO (F-1) 3-46/2020 (W.E) dated 19.05.2022 was issued purportedly ('the Notification') to ensure uninterrupted supply of wheat to flour mills and to stabilize its price in the market

Clause VII of the Notification stated that no new flour mill getting a license during the current release season shall be issued wheat from public stock for the purpose of grinding

Petitioners were flour mills owners who contended that the Cl. VII of the Notification was beyond the powers conferred under S.3 of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 ('the Act 1958') and the restriction contained therein offended Arts. 8, 18 & 25 of the Constitution

Validity

Notification-in-question was primarily issued to ensure uninterrupted supply of wheat stock to the flour mills in order to stabilize the prices of flour in the market

Mandatory condition prescribed in this behalf was that wheat could be supplied to the approved functional flour mills having valid food-grains license

Said mandatory condition was fulfilled by the Petitioners

Grinding capacity had been duly determined by the department as per prescribed standard operating procedures

Clause IV of the policy contained in the Notification-in-question unequivocally stipulated that the Policy was subject to review after a period of one month, which indicated the need for periodic adjustment to cater the ever-changing market conditions

In said context, the only justification of imposing the impugned restriction appeared to be the convenience of the Department so that it might not have to frequently redistribute wheat quotas amongst the eligible flour mills

By doing so, the department had created two distinct classes of flour mills in terms of existing flour mills and newly established flour mills although both types of flour mills were otherwise eligible to receive the wheat quotas from public stock from the department in terms of their functionality and licenses

Thus, newly established flour mills as a class had been discriminated vis-a-vis the existing flour mills without any rational or intelligible criteria that could withstand the test of permissible classifications in terms of Art. 25 of the Constitution

Though the department had the right to regulate the release of wheat from public stock under Art. 18 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Act, 1958 but at the same time, the power to regulate was subject to law and structured discretion which in turn must be just, equitable and transparent

Impugned restriction contained in Cl. VII of the Notification prohibiting the supply of wheat to newly functional mills having valid licenses granted by the Food Department was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and was not based on any intelligible criteria, which did not withstand the test of structured discretion and therefore, in order to correct the legality in procedural impropriety, in exercise of judicial review, Cl. VII of the Notification was struck down and was declared as unconstitutional and unlawful

Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner challenged the order passed by department whereby his application for appointment as Sub-Inspector (BS-11), being next in merit, was turned down

Validity

Merit list was prepared in 2017 and department for the first time in 2018 requested the Public Service Commission to provide substitute candidates by clearly mentioning that none out of the four recommended candidates joined duty

In this view of the matter, petitioner came at Serial No. 4 of the waiting candidates, thus, his right to be considered for appointment being next in merit list accrued well within the validity of the merit list

In response, Public Service Commission only provided one substitute candidate and already recommended three candidates were again included

Admitted position of the matter was that the recommended candidates had not joined the duties and the department was willing to make appointment from waiting candidates then why four candidates in the waiting list were not appointed simultaneously

Department was at fault in not actively completing the recruitment process and lingering on the matter without any legal justification

Waiting candidate had already been appointed but the petitioner was subjected to discrimination in violation of equality clause contained in Article 25 of the Constitution

Petitioner could not be penalized for a wrong, lapse or ignorance on the part of the department

Impugned order was declared to be illegal and was set aside

Department was directed to redress the petitioner's grievance in liaison with the Public Service Commission

Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Dispute was with regard to removal of Advocate General and other Law Officers by Care-taker government of Punjab province on the plea of political affiliation with outgoing political party

Validity

Appointment of Advocate General is a substantial appointment and otherwise falls in the realm of major policy decision

Simplicitor removal of Advocate General on the allegation of having political affiliation/association - solely because appointed by elected Provincial Government - and without any plausible justification and reasoning and without seeking indulgence of Election Commission, per se violated mandate of S. 230(1)(d) of Elections Act, 2017

Such action could not otherwise be construed as an impartial act to a political party

Segregation so made had no basis in law and in fact stigmatized excluded Law Officers, risking their chances of seeking appointment in the office, by dint of their competency and merits

This was discrimination and did not meet test of reasonable classification

Excluding nineteen (19) Law Officers contravened the Constitutional mandate and had rendered effect of Art. 140(2) of the Constitution ineffectual, which prescribed scope of duties for Advocate General

High Court directed Care-taker Provincial Government to operate and function within the ambit of S. 230 of the Elections Act, 2017 and set aside appointment of fresh Law Officers

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

It was duty of functionaries of the Sate to ensure that rights of citizens, particularly the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution should not be trodden or denied

Compensation to be paid to land owner in year 2009/2010 had not been done and the land owner had already suffered a lot on account of non-payment of compensation to him

Delinquent officers in National Highway Authority/Revenue Department were responsible for making losses sustained by/caused to land owner

Compensation had already been paid to other land owners, whose lands were acquired for same public construction project

Non-payment of compensation to petitioner/land owner was act of discrimination

High Court directed acquiring agency/revenue department for expeditious compensation to petitioner/ land owner regarding his acquired land with the benefit of compound interest under S. 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners/candidates were aggrieved of eligibility criteria determined for admissions to Medical College for Overseas Pakistanis and others

Validity

Classification for candidates who had studied abroad for a mere 2-year period, no matter where that may be, were considered to be at an academic advantage compared to candidates who had acquired their education in Pakistan

Such classification amounted to a damning indictment of the overall state of education in country

While a distinction might be drawn for purposes of admission between local Pakistanis and persons who are overseas Pakistanis, the latter genre cannot be broadened vide impugned classification in question merely on the basis of two-years of foreign education, so as to encompass persons who are Pakistani citizens and otherwise possess qualifications and thus preclude them from applying for general merit seats

High Court set aside classification in question as the same was unreasonable and could not be introduced in the prospectus as a device to put an otherwise eligible Pakistani citizen beyond the pale of consideration

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Provision of Art. 25 of the Constitution allows for a reasonable classification which is based on intelligent differentia.

Plaintiffs/consumer companies were aggrieved of policy issued by Federal Government regarding allocation and management of natural gas supply during winter season

Plaintiffs/ consumer companies contended that they were discriminated as the policy for consumers of SNGPL was different than those of SSGPL

Validity

Policy for gas envisaged under Art. 154(1) of the Constitution was separate from the policy which Federal Government could make in exercise of its executive authority under Art. 97 of the Constitution read with S. 21 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Former could be made for special purposes of maintaining relations between Federating Units or the Federation and the Federating Units, while the latter was made as a strategy to allocate and manage gas-supply to various categories of consumers

Due to fluctuations in demand and supply of gas year round and dwindling gas reserves, the latter policy needed to be revisited and adjusted frequently

Such policy-making was not intended for Council of Common Interest

Overlap could occur between two types of policies and was to be examined in a case that would present such an overlap

Gas policy made by Federal Government was not in conflict with any gas policy made by Council of Common Interest

Natural Gas Allocation and Management Policy, 2005, was within the legal competence of Federal Government and not the Council of Common Interest

Revision of such policy by Federal Government by notification in question did not violate Art. 154(1) of the Constitution

Comparison drawn by plaintiffs/consumer companies between supply of gas by SNGPL and SSGPL to plead discrimination was not a comparison in same circumstances, especially when the gas-supply contracts between plaintiffs/consumer companies and SSGPL permitted the SSGPL to make a complete gas-closure during winter months

Gas closure notice dated 10-12-2021 issued by SSGPL did not violate Federal Government's Gas Load Management Plan for Winter 2021-22

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were retired employees of respondent Authority and were aggrieved of withdrawal of Orderly Allowance to them which was available to other officials in similar situation

Validity

Categorization of both Executive Groups was at par in various allowances and were bracketed in the same Pay Group

Despite splitting PG-10 in EG-07 and EG-08, most of the allowances were identical and equal

Any discrimination in payment of Orderly Allowance after retirement amongst both the Executive Groups was not fair and justified; rather amounted to discrimination for no plausible reason whatsoever by non-inclusion of Orderly Allowance in their monthly pensionary benefits

Principle of equality before the law was applied in matters of pay and pension

Legislative act to nullify a judgment, without taking away its basis, was an impermissible exercise

High Court in another case had earlier directed respondent / Authority for inclusion of Orderly Allowance in pensionable emoluments of petitioners, under law

Respondent / Authority without taking away basis of the order omitted Regln. 46(10) of Civil Aviation Authority Employees Pay and Pension Regulations, 2014, which exercise amounted to nullifying the effect of earlier order, which was not permissible under the law

High Court placed petitioners at par with EG-08 retired officers and allowed Orderly Allowance to them from the date when they were receiving the allowance, without discrimination

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Expression "intelligible differentia" means difference capable of being understood; a factor that distinguishes a class from another which is capable of being understood.

Contention of the petitioners (Sindh Bar Council and several of its then office-bearers) that in terms of Arts. 177 & 193 of the Constitution, practicing advocates with relevant experience are qualified to be appointed as Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan and the respective High Courts, however, the qualification in terms of R. 3(1) has been tailor made so as to limit eligibility to the retired judges of Supreme Court, thus the qualification is unreasonably restrictive and discriminatory violating Art. 25 of the Constitution

Held, that the R. 3(1) of the Appointment of Chairman and Members Qualifications Rules, 2016, does not give rise to a violation of Art. 25 of the Constitution or of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and even the scope thereof is considered to be restricted and a more expansive qualification criteria is regarded as desirable, which is a matter to be considered by the competent authority and does not of itself affect the vires of the Rule, and neither such alleged defect nor the setting aside of the Rule on that basis would even otherwise constitute a ground for the Impugned Notification to be struck down so as to displace the incumbent Chairman

Moreover albeit that S. 9 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, on which reliance has been placed in the present petition, envisages one of the functions of a Provincial Bar Council to promote and suggest law reforms, without presently dilating on the scope thereof

Recourse to Art. 199 of the Constitution is not necessarily the appropriate means of performing that function

Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Petitioner, claiming herself as a contingent paid employee, filed writ petition against denial by the (Education, Finance, Services) Departments/respondents for her bio-metric verification

Contention of the respondents (Education Department) was that the petitioner was not appointed as contingent paid employee rather she was appointed as community school teacher, therefore, she was not entitled for bio-metric verification

Validity

Respondents had failed to produce any document (appointment order etc.) regarding appointment of the petitioner as community school teacher

Record transpired that the petitioner and eight (08) other individuals/persons were appointed as contingent paid staff vide Office Order No. DDE(GZ)-43(2)/2015 dated 28th October, 2015

Said Office Order had belied the version/averment of the respondents that the petitioner was community school teacher and she did not fall within the ambit of contingent paid staff

Respondents had conducted bio-metric verification of the colleagues of the present petitioner, but the respondents had not provided a fair opportunity to the petitioner for bio-metric verification

Moreover, vide an official letter addressed to the respondent / Secretary Education, the Director Schools Co-ordination recommended the petitioner for bio-metric verification which was forwarded to the respondent / Secretary Finance, but he had failed to do the needful, which was clear discrimination on the part of respondents against the petitioner

Chief Court directed the respondents to provide opportunity to the petitioner for bio-metric verification within shortest possible time

Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Writ jurisdiction of the Chief Court was invoked by officials working on the post of Superintendent (BPS-17) in Anti-Terrorism Court and Custom and Banking Court of Gilgit-Baltistan

Record revealed that the (same) post of Superintendent in District Judiciary had been re-designated/upgraded as Staff Officer (BPS-18) w.e.f 1st June 2020, but the petitioners had not been upgraded to bring them at par with the similar placed persons

Qualification and nature of duty for the post of Superintendent in the Courts where the petitioners were working and Lower Judiciary of Gilgit Baltistan was same

Article 25 of the Constitution, having been included in the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, required that persons similarly placed had to be treated similarly except on the basis of reasonable classification

Qualification and nature of duties of both posts being the same , the petitioners could not be treated differently

Petitioners, in light of Arts. 4 & 25 of the Constitution, had the inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law and were entitled to equal protection of law

Equality before law was subject to reasonable classification but in the present case there was no question of any classification

Post of the Superintendent in BPS-17 in subordinate Judiciary of Gilgit-Baltistan had been re-designated as Court Officers and the same was upgraded from BPS-17 to BPS-18 w.e.f 1st June 2020 by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court vide Notification No. CC-E/2020 dated 11th June 2020, hence the post held by the petitioners also needed to be re-designated/upgraded as per analogy of "equal treatment among the equals"

Petitioners being similarly placed in terms of their natures of job i.e. same type of work, service grade and qualification had clearly been discriminated in treatment by the respondents' vis-à-vis their counterparts in the Lower Judiciary of Gilgit Baltistan

Chief Court directed the respondents to remove the cause of such discrimination by notifying the up-gradation of petitioner's cadre for equal treatment bringing them at par with their counterparts working in the subordinate judiciary of Gilgit Baltistan

Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Previously, in multiple appeals preferred by various importers, the Tribunal declared as illegal certain Valuation Ruling regarding tyres, to which (proceedings) the appellant was not a party

Appellant/importer, relying on said order/judgment, sought the same benefit but was denied

Stance of the respondents /Collectorate was that the appellant was not given benefit of the previous order passed by the Tribunal as the same was an order -in-personam and not in rem

Held, that the stance of the Department was misconceived as in said previous order the Tribunal, while setting aside Valuation Ruling, set forth a principle meaning thereby that the Valuation Ruling-in-question contained patent illegalities

Therefore, Valuation Ruling-in-question was set-aside in rem, setting a principle that, once it was set-aside declaring it illegal, the Valuation Ruling-in-question was to be deemed as "not in field" for everyone importing those category of goods

Valuation Ruling-in-question was set-aside in general

Admittedly, the goods of other importers, like the appellant, were being assessed on the declared transactional values of other importers , which tantamount to violation of the fundamental rights of the appellant since action of discriminatory treatment by the Collectorate had infringed his fundamental rights of equal protection of law guaranteed under the Constitution

Customs Appellate Tribunal set-aside impugned Order-in-Appeal against the appellant , and directed the respondents/Collectorate to finalize the assessment of the appellant on the same values as ordered by the Tribunal vide previous judgment relied upon by him (appellant)

Appeal filed by the importer, was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was Provincial Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and was aggrieved of non-payment of Superior Judicial Allowance to him which was approved by Governor in his favour and previous Ombudsmen had also been receiving the allowance

Validity

Discrimination met with petitioner was not based on any rational ground or reasonable classification and was devoid of intelligible differentia

In order to avoid discrimination, order passed by Governor for paying Superior Judicial Allowance to petitioner was not suffering from any illegality or irregularity

Chief Minister erred in facts as well as law while rejecting summary for approval of payment of Superior Judicial Allowance

High Court directed Provincial Government to make payment of Superior Judicial Allowance to petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by Governor of the Province

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.