SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB etc. vs SYEDA ZIL-E-
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition converted into an appeal, challenging the judgment of the Service Tribunal which had allowed the respondent's appeal for the grant of advance increments. The core legal question was whether a judicial forum could grant relief solely on the ground that an illegality had been committed in favor of other similarly placed individuals. The Supreme Court held that an illegality committed in other cases cannot serve as a precedent for a judicial forum to perpetuate a similar illegality. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the applicable rules and policies governing advance increments. The key principle laid down is that parity cannot be claimed on the basis of an illegal act, and judicial forums must decide entitlements strictly based on governing laws rather than replicated administrative errors.
- Can a judicial forum grant relief solely on the ground that similar benefits were illegally granted to others?
- Does an illegality committed by an authority serve as a binding precedent for courts or tribunals?
- Whether a matter should be remanded to the Tribunal when it fails to examine an entitlement in light of governing rules?
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' he 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.