Equal protection of law

2023 PLC(CS)N 26 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Art.4(4)Equal protection of lawDiscrimination

Principles.

2023 PLC(CS)N 26 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Arts.44 & 4(4)Azad Jammu and Kashmir Allocation (Accommodation) Rules, 1981, R.3Civil serviceEmployees of "special institution"Allotment of official accomodationCancellation ofEqual protection of lawScope

Petitioners (employees of special institutions) were declared not entitled for official accommodation being employees of "special institutions"

Validity

Petitioners were employees of special institutions

Provision of R.3 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Allocation (Accommodation) Rules, 1981 was against Art.4(4) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 which enshrined equal protection to all the state subjects

Petitioners-employees were entitled for allotment of official accommodation owned by the government according to law

High Court observed that R.3 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Allocation (Accommodation) Rules, 1981 should be amended so that employees of "special institutions" could avail official accommodation as well

Petitioners should not be dispossessed from the official accommodation allotted to them as per seniority and merit

Writ petition was accepted, in circumstances.

2021 PLC(CS) 1589 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.4 & 25Audit and Accounts allowance granted to employees of Provincial Treasury Service vide a notificationDiscriminationEqual protection of lawScope

Petitioner [Deputy Director (Finance and Accounts) of Local Government, Election and Rural Development] sought extension of benefit of notification contending that he was working at the same post with the same functions as that of employees of Treasury Service

Validity

Neither the petitioner was employee of Federal/Provincial Treasury Service nor of Controller General of Accounts and Auditor General of Pakistan, whereas allowance-in-question was exclusively meant for employees of Provincial Treasury Service

Equal protection of laws by Art. 25 of the Constitution did not mean that all laws must be general in character nor that the same law should apply to all persons

Varying need of different classes of persons often required separate treatment

From the very nature of society there should be different laws in different places

Identical treatment in unequal circumstances, in fact, would amount to inequality

Reasonable classification thus was not only permitted but was necessary if society was to progress

Petitioner had failed to establish that any act of the respondents was mala fide and in colourable exercise of power, as there was no discrimination within a class/group of services of petitioner and those employees of Treasury Service

Impugned notification was specific for the persons of a specific group/class, particular for the employees of Treasury Service leaving the persons of other groups/departments and the same could not be treated as discrimination with the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 PLC(CS) 14 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.35, 36Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act (XVIII of 1991), S.9 (since repealed)Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199, 25, 189 & 190Equal protection of law

Employees of Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and then to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Terms and conditions of service

Employees seeking similar retirement benefits as extended by the Federal Government for retired civil servants

Validity

Departmental employees after their transfer to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited were no more civil servants but their terms and conditions prior to their transfer were those of civil servants

Terms and conditions of petitioners had been protected under S.9 of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and Ss.35 & 36 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996

Terms and conditions of service of departmental employees should not be varied to their disadvantage

Employees-petitioners were entitled to all those service benefits to which civil servants were entitled, in circumstances

Departmental employees were entitled to all those retirement benefits which were payable to retired civil servants

Petitioners had lost their status of civil servants and they could not invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal to agitate the matter with regard to terms and conditions of their service

Petitioners had not sought relief in the present constitutional petition with regard to a matter concerning the terms and conditions of their service

Employees were bound to extend the same benefit to the petitioners which had been given to the similarly placed departmental employees who were parties to the petitions wherein same relief had been given by the Courts

Employers had not increased pension at the same rate as announced by the Federal Government from time to time and had not extended other retirement benefits to the petitioners which had been given to the retired civil servants

Employers were directed by the High Court to calculate the arrears of pension and grant all other retirement benefits at the same rate which had been given by the Federal Government to the retired civil servants

Constitutional petitions were allowed, accordingly.

2021 PLC(CS)N 19 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976)Notification No. S&GAD/R/A-4(5)/94 dated 25-06-1994Notification No. S&GAD/R/A-4(5)/90 dated 06-08-1995Forest Protection OfficersClaim for judicial allowance and change in administrative controlFair trialEqual protection of lawExpression "terms and conditions"Scope

Contention of petitioners was that they were performing functions of judicial nature and they were entitled to same perks and privileges as were paid to Civil Judges and their supervisory control should be transferred to High Court

Validity

Nature of job of petitioners was not same as of Civil Judges

Load of work on a Civil Judge was many time heavier than that of a Forest Protection Officer

Expression 'terms and conditions' could not be equalized to the words 'perquisites'

Judicial allowance did fall within the purview of perquisites attached with the office of judicial officers in the Judicial Department under administrative control of High Court

Forest Protection Officer being a separate entity and under the control of Forest Department could not be termed as equal to that of a Civil Judge

Forest Protection Officers were not entitled to judicial allowance on the basis of parity with Civil Judges, in circumstances

Forest Protection Officers were appointed by the Government and their services were being controlled by the officials of Forest Department

Fair trial of the cases before a Forest Protection Officer in such a situation could not be guaranteed

Office of Forest Protection Officer was of judicial nature which had been entrusted with hearing and deciding the matters with regard to offences and damages to the forest property

Litigant before Forest Protection Officer could not have a fair trial unless the office of Forest Protection Officer was freed from any sort of executive control

Even appeal against the order/decision of Forest Protection Officer did lie before Forest Appellate Tribunal comprising of a Sessions Judge

Forest Protection Officers had been kept away from superintendence and control of High Court

Office of Forest Protection Officer being a subordinate forum of High Court if put under the administrative control of executive, it would tantamount to violate the provisions of S.46(1) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Office of Forest Protection Officer did fall under the High Court, in circumstances

Mode of appointment and administrative control of the Forests Department over the office of Forest Protection Officer was violative of S.46(1) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Equal protection of law did mean that a citizen should be provided an opportunity of fair trial which could be conducted only bY a judicial forum

Forest Protection Officers were not entitled for judicial allowance however, they would be allowed such allowance if they were entrusted with civil work under the superintendence and control of High Court

Notification No. S&GAD/R/A-4(5)/94 dated 25-06-1994 and Notification No. S&GAD/R/A-4(5)/90 dated 06-08-1995 to the extent of appointment of Forest Protection Officers were declared to be violative of provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and of no legal effect

High Court recommended that rules be amended in view of the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, so as to bring the forum of Forest Protection Officer under the superintendence and control of High Court and their mode of appointment be also amended in the like manner as those of Civil Judges in the Judicial Department

Writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

2019 PLC(CS) 507 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Inter-districts transferSeniority, determination ofPromotionEqual protection of lawScope

Employee was transferred from one district to another district with the condition that his seniority would be determined at the bottom of seniority list under the rules

Name of petitioner was not mentioned at proper place of seniority list and he filed representation which was allowed but same was not implemented

Validity

Every citizen had right to be treated in accordance with law

Where availability of alternate remedy was a question before entertaining a constitutional petition, impugned action of officials should be considered first

If actions of department were not within the confines of law or were based on some extraneous reasons, petitioner might be granted such relief as prayed

Petitioner, in the present case, had sought issuance of writ to implement the order of authorities

Consideration for promotion did not fall within the terms and conditions of service as eligibility was still to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee

Right of seniority of petitioner-employee to be considered qua his colleagues had been made less secure due to the actions of authorities

Grievance of employee could be redressed in under the constitutional jurisdiction by directing the authorities to abide by the decision of their senior officers and treat the petitioner at par with his other colleagues for the purpose of seniority as well as promotion

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2017 PLC(CS) 1020 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 4Equal protection of lawScopeEvery citizen had an inalienable right to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law

No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person could be taken except in accordance with law.

2017 MLD 1291 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 4(15)Equal protection of law

All the State subjects were equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law.

2016 PLC 326 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Equal protection of law

Benefit of judgment of the court, should be extended to others who might not be parties to the litigation; and fell in the same category, instead of compelling them to approach the legal forum

Article 25 of Constitution, was also clear on the point, that all the citizens were entitled to equal protection of law.

2016 PLC(CS) 179 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 4Equal protection of lawScopeTo enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inalienable right of every citizen

No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person could be taken except in accordance with law.

2015 PLC 295 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Equal protection of lawScope

All citizens were entitled to equal protection of law.

2014 PLC(CS) 884 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 4 & 10AEqual protection of lawScope

Articles 4 & 10A of the Constitution ensured that all individuals should enjoy equal protection of law and should be treated in accordance with law, which was their inalienable right

Every person for determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him should be entitled to fair trial and due process.

2014 PLD 232 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 4 & 10AEqual protection of lawScope

Articles 4 & 10A of the Constitution ensured that all individuals should enjoy equal protection of law and should be treated in accordance with law, which was their inalienable right

Every person for determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him should be entitled to fair trial and due process.

2014 YLR 120 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.25Equal protection of lawReasonable classificationScope

All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law which should not be allowed to be withheld

Person or class of persons placed in different circumstances and in different set of facts could be treated differently and any classification which was reasonable, proper on solid basis, must always rest upon some differences

Persons placed in different circumstances and in different set of facts, if given different treatment, would not be treated as unreasonable classification.

2014 YLR 120 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.25Equal protection of lawScope

Equal protection of law does not mean that every citizen, no matter what his condition, must be treated in the same manner

Phrase 'equal protection' of law means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of law which is enjoyed by other persons or other class of persons in like circumstances

Persons, similarly situated or in similar circumstances, would be treated in same manner

All law implies classification for, when it applied to a set of circumstances, it created thereby a class and equal protection meant that classification should be reasonable.

2014 YLR 120 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts.25 & 199Constitutional petitionEqual protection of lawDiscriminationRelief package meant for general customers/borrowers of the BankEntitlement of Bank employees for such reliefScopePetitioners' being employees of the Bank, got loan on a non-interest basis

Federal government announced relief package for the borrowers of Malakand Division through which their loans were written off

Petitioners/employees of the Bank being borrowers like other domiciled of Malakand Division claimed benefit of said relief package

Bank refused the claim of petitioners as they were not general customers of the Bank, they were employees and their arrangements of credits/advances/finances availed were regulated by the rules of the Bank

Contention of the petitioners was that Bank had already written off the loans of borrowers having domicile of Malakand Division but the petitioners' who also belonged to the same division were discriminated against

Validity

Case of petitioners was not covered by the scheme/ packages approved/launched either by the Government or by the State Bank of Pakistan and the respondent-Bank

Staff loans or the advances given to the employees of the Bank was an arrangement between the Bank and its employees covered by their own service rules/scheme and were not treated at par with the finances advanced to general customers on commercial basis

Finances advanced to the petitioners/bank employees were not covered by any of the scheme/package of remission given as relief packages sanctioned/launched by the government and State Bank of Pakistan

Constitutional petition was dismissed.