AZIZUL HASSAN vs SIND AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 31-8-1980, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding a pay dispute concerning his position as a Field Assistant. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner's claim for a specific pay scale was supported by the applicable rules and departmental letters. The Supreme Court held that the petition was without merit as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the post and pay scale of Field Assistant were covered under the relevant pay revision rules or that the departmental letters relied upon were in accordance with those rules. The Court laid down the principle that departmental letters and administrative instructions cannot override or assist a claimant unless shown to be strictly in accordance with the governing statutory rules, and a writ petition suffering from unexplained delays and lack of foundational legal support is liable to be dismissed.
- Whether departmental letters and administrative instructions can sustain a monetary claim when they are not shown to be in accordance with the applicable pay revision rules?
- Does a writ petition challenging a service pay dispute become barred by laches when representations against the rejection of demands face prolonged delays?
- Can a petitioner succeed in assailing a High Court judgment regarding pay scales without producing or establishing the applicability of the governing statutory rules?
- West Pakistan (Non-Gazetted) Civil Services Pay Revision Rules, 1959
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, Actg. C. J.--The petitioner claims to be the Field Assistant of the first respondent and he began service when this respondent was known as the Agricultural Institute, Tandojam. Further, according to Mr. Ansar Hussain, the petitioner, who was a non-matriculate had been appointed as Field Assistant on 5-10-1959, but he was not given the pay to which he was entitled, therefore, he had made repeated representations which met with some success, because there is a letter from the Agricultural Depart--ment of the West Pakistan Government of March, 1970 which lends some support to the petitioner's claim. But, Mr. Ansar Hussain admitted that the Principal of the Agricultural Institute had refused to implement this letter. Therefore, he had gone on making representations, but for the purpose of this petition it is sufficient to state that the petitioner's claim was rejected by the Syndicate of the first respondent on 22-4-1978. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the Sind High Court which was dismissed on 31-8-1980. Hence this petition for leave.
2. As Mr. Ansar Hussain admitted that the Principal of the Agricultural Institute had rejected the petitioner's demands despite the letter of March, 1970, the writ petition appears to be barred by laches. However, the High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the West Pakistan (Non---Gazetted) Civil Services Pay Revision Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the said Rules) "do not apply to the petitioner, because the post and pay scale of Field Assistant is not specified in the Schedule to the rules". Mr. Ansar Hussain was unable to show us any error, much less any error of law, in these observa--tions, because he said he had not been able to obtain the said rules. It is, therefore, obvious that the petition fails on the ground that the petitioner has no means of assailing the impugned judgment, because he is unable tot show us how his claim is supported by the said rules.
3. As this is obvious, Mr. Ansar Hussain fell back on the letter of the Agricultural Department, Government of West Pakistan, March, 1970 to which we had referred earlier and to another letter of the West Pakistan Government dated 22-1-1966. But, as rightly held by the learned Judges of the High Court, these letters can help the petitioner only if he can show that the directions given in these letters were in accordance with the said Rules. However, learned counsel is unable to produce these rules and the learned Judges have given a finding that the letters were not in accordance with the said rules, therefore, these letters are of no avail to the petitioner's case.
4. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.