KH D M HUSSAIN AND 2 Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other
The petitioners, ad hoc officers serving as Instructors and Senior Instructors in polytechnics, sought the benefit of five advance increments granted by the Provincial Co-ordination Committee to lecturers holding Master's degrees in Physical and Natural Sciences. The Punjab Government had restricted the applicability of this decision to regular appointees in N.P.S. 17 as of April 30, 1977, thereby excluding the petitioners. The Service Tribunal, while expressing sympathy for the petitioners' demand, declined to issue a formal direction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that decisions of the Provincial Co-ordination Committee are not legally binding on Provincial Governments unless explicitly accepted and implemented by the respective Provincial Government. The Court clarified that the petitioners had no legal entitlement to the increments based solely on the Committee's recommendations. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the petitioners' claim lacked a legal basis, noting that the Tribunal's favorable recommendation was merely a non-binding observation that could be used for administrative representation rather than a source of enforceable legal right.
- Are decisions of the Provincial Co-ordination Committee legally binding on Provincial Governments without formal acceptance?
- Do ad hoc employees possess an enforceable legal right to benefits granted to regular employees by administrative policy?
- Can a Service Tribunal's recommendation, issued without a formal direction, be enforced as a legal right?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The Provincial Co-ordination Committee decided to grant 5 advance increments to persons holding a Master's Degree in the Physical and Natural Sciences and serving as lecturers in colleges. Instructors and Senior Instructors of polytechniques also applied for it. The Punjab Government decided to accept the decision of the Provincial Co-ordination. Committee only in respect to Instructors and Senior Instructors who were appointed on regular basis in N. P. S. 17 and who held the posts on 30-4-1977.
2. The petitioners are ad hoc Officers and, therefore, do not fall within this category. They filed-an appeal before the Tribunal which took note of their submissions and expressed itself in favour of their demand and disposed of the appeal without issuing any direction. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who base their claims upon the decision of the Provincial Co-ordination Committee. The various Provincial sGovernments are not bound under any law by decisions of the Provincial Co-ordination Committee which becomes effective in -a Province only upon the Provincial Government's accepting the same. The petitioners have, therefore, no case on the legal plain. In fact, they should thank their stars that the Tribunal has made a recommendation which, of course, they could use in representing their case before the Govermnent in their favour. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.