Cantonment service

2015 PLC(CS) 183 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Annexs. I & IIIConstitution of Pakistan, Arts.199, 4, 9 & 25Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityCantonment serviceUp-gradationDenial of Fundamental RightsEffectColourful exercise of powers by authoritiesEffect

Authorities partially implemented the office memorandum for up-gradation of clerical/Auditors posts according to their own whims instead of implementing the same in toto

Test for determining as to whether statutory body was a 'person' within the meaning of Art.199 of the Constitution

Contention of the petitioners was that they had been subjected to discrimination by not upgrading their posts and the discretion had been exercised by the authorities unreasonably and arbitrarily

Validity

Petitioners were entitled to national pay scales in accordance with the government policy as provided in Annexure-I to the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954

Cantonment Boards were under mandatory obligation to follow the government policies introduced/ circulated from time to time

Inaction on part of the authorities fell within the mischief of Art.25 of the Constitution, which envisaged that equal protection of law should be provided to the persons equally placed and they were entitled to be treated alike in privileges conferred

Persons similarly placed could not be distinguished or discriminated and in case of any deviation, the act of the authority/statutory functionary could be challenged before the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution

Functionaries of the State, statutory bodies and statutory corporations were required to act strictly in accordance with law and in case of transgression of powers, abuse of powers or colourful exercise of powers by such functionaries, the exercise was open to correction in constitutional jurisdiction of superior judiciary

Authorities could not act at its sweet will and pleasure, but its action must be in conformity with the principles, which met the test of justice, reason, fairness, equality of treatment and must qualify standards and norms that were not arbitrary, irrational, whimsical and discriminatory

Principle of reasonableness and rationality, which was an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness was projected by Art.25 of the Constitution and it must characterize every State action whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power

Petitioners had been discriminated as the authorities without any reasonable differentia had denied the right of up-gradation of their posts

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.