PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary and another vs SAMUEL

' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.- -- Province of Punjab etc, the petitioners, seek leave to appeal against order dated 21-5-2008, whereby the learned Lahore High Court at Lahore, while disposing of constitutional petition Writ Petition No,10293 of 2006 filed by respondent No i, directed the petitioners to pay overtime allowance of Rs,1,000 per month to respondent No,1 and his similarly placed colleagues.

2. Respondent No,1 filed the constitutional petition, inter alia, praying that the petitioners be directed to allow overtime allowance of Rs,1,000 per month to the writ petitioner and respondents Nos.4 to 28 in the writ petition. The petitioners contested the writ petition and submitted that according to the Finance Department's circular letters, Drivers attached with the Officers in regular BS-21, who are entitled to free private use of staff cars, are only entitled to draw overtime allowance at the prescribed rate of Rs,1000 per month. It was also submitted in parawise comments that Punjab Public Service Commission's request to extend the said facility to the Drivers attached with Members BS-20 was declined by the Finance Department. The learned Lahore High Court, while holding that respondent No,1 and his colleagues are entitled for the overtime allowance of Rs,1,000 per month, allowed the constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,10293 of 2006), vide order dated 21- 5-2008 and directed the petitioners as under:--- "The respondents Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay the overtime allowance of Rs,1,000 per month to the petitioner and his similarly placed colleagues."

' Hence the present petition.

3. This Court, vide an interim order dated 6-3-2009, directed the Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission to file a concise statement about the nature of duties of respondents with specific reference to the question whether they perform duties after the office hours or not? Pursuant thereto, the Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission has filed a concise statement.

4. The learned Law Officer with reference to the said statement submitted that some of the respondents, in view of the policy letters of Finance Department and nature of their duties, are already drawing overtime allowance of Rs,1,000 per month. He further submitted that no discriminatory treatment was meted out by the respondents, as the Drivers attached with the Officers in regular BS-21 are only entitled to draw overtime allowance of Rs:1000 per month in view of the Finance Department's letters dated 1-8-1991, 27-7-1995 and 2-9-2004 and that the Department has classified the Drivers in view of the said policy letters. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that all the Drivers, who do duty after office hours, are entitled for the overtime allowance.

5. We have heard the learned Law Officer, learned counsel for the respondents and examined the available record. The Drivers, who are attached with the Officers in regular BS-21, who are entitled to free private use of staff cars, were held to be entitled, in view of different letters issued by the Finance Department, to draw overtime allowance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month, while the other drivers were not eligible for overtime allowance. In view of that classification, validly made under the afore-noted circulars, the drivers, who fall within the said category, undeniably, are getting overtime allowance. It may be true that some other drivers may be performing the same duties, but it is also true that they do not fall within the category of drivers, who were held entitled under various notifications to draw overtime allowance, issued by the competent authority, therefore they were not entitled to get overtime allowance. Although, under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law, yet the State is not prohibited to treat its citizens on the basis of reasonable classification and it is not the intention of Article 25 of the Constitution that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances, however, it would be applicable on the persons similarly placed or similarly situated. Reference may be made to I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SC 1041 and Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon PLD 1993 SC 341. The respondents were neither similarly placed nor were discriminated and therefore, Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not attracted/applicable. In view of the said landmark judgments, to our mind, Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not attracted in the case and learned High Court, with respect, while applying Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution, really erred in law and even granted relief to the respondents, who were not aggrieved persons before it.

The impugned order is thus not sustainable in law and we feel no hesitation in setting aside the same.

6. Respondent No,1 only filed the constitutional petition and respondents Nos.4 to 28 were arrayed as respondents in the said petition and they did not agitate the matter before the learned high Court. It appears that respondents Nos.4 to 28 were not at all "aggrieved persons" within the contemplation of law. Despite that the learned High Court thought it fit to award the relief which was only claimed by respondent No,1. It seems that respondents Nos.4 to 28 were not at all aggrieved by the acts and omissions of the petitioners and that was the reason why they neither agitated the matter before the competent authority nor did they highlight their grievance before any Court of law nor they were petitioners before the learned High Court.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is converted into appeal, allowed and the impugned order dated 21-5-2008 is set aside; resultantly petition filed by respondent No,1 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.