SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others vs Syeda ZIL-
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, challenging a decision of the Service Tribunal regarding the grant of advance increments. The core legal question was whether an administrative illegality committed in favor of certain individuals can serve as a binding precedent for a judicial forum to grant similar benefits to another claimant. The Supreme Court held that an illegality committed by an authority cannot be a precedent for a judicial forum to perpetuate a similar illegality. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision to be determined strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and policies governing the subject. The key principle laid down is that parity in illegality cannot be claimed before a judicial forum, and administrative actions must be adjudicated strictly on the basis of applicable statutory rules rather than discriminatory precedents.
- Can an illegality committed in favor of some individuals serve as a precedent for a judicial forum to grant similar benefits?
- Whether a service tribunal is bound to examine the entitlement of a civil servant in light of governing rules rather than relying solely on discriminatory actions of the authority?
ORDER
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Since the learned Tribunal had not examined the question of entitlement of the respondent to the grant of advance increments in the light of the rules/policies governing the subject and had allowed the respondent's appeal only on the ground that the competent authority had granted the said increments to three others who were similarly placed as the respondent, and since it was admitted before us that advance increments had been illegally allowed to the said three subject specialists and because an illegality committed by some one could be no precedent for a judicial forum to commit a similar illegality, therefore, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and then to determine whether the respondent was entitled to the advance increments in question in terms of the relevant rules/policies.
2. In this view of the matter, this petition is converted into an appeal which is allowed as a result whereof the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision of the same in the light of what has been noticed above.
3. If the learned Tribunal finds that the respondent was not entitled to the grant of the said increments, then the Education Secretary is directed to bring the others similarly placed, at par with the respondent.