SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others vs Syeda ZIL-
This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the entitlement of a respondent to advance increments, which had been granted by the Punjab Service Tribunal based solely on the principle of parity with three other subject specialists who had received similar benefits. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal erred in granting relief based on parity without first examining the underlying rules and policies governing the entitlement to such increments. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's reliance on parity was misplaced because the initial grant of increments to the other individuals was admitted to be illegal. The Court established the principle that an illegality committed by an authority cannot serve as a valid precedent for a judicial forum to perpetuate or replicate that same illegality. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, directing it to determine the respondent's entitlement strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and policies, while also ordering the Education Secretary to rectify the position of the other similarly placed individuals if the respondent is found ineligible.
- Can a judicial forum grant relief based on parity if the underlying benefit granted to others was itself illegal?
- Is a service tribunal required to examine the specific rules and policies governing an entitlement rather than relying solely on the treatment of similarly placed individuals?
- What is the appropriate course of action when a tribunal fails to adjudicate a service matter 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 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 someone 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 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 afresh 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, thee the Education Secretary is directed to bring the others similarly placed, at par with the respondent.