Pakistan Case Law
2014 SCMR 1687

CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INLAND REVENUE and anothers vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2014 SCMR 1687
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,908 of 2014
Date2014-07-08
Judge(s)Nasir-ul-Mulk, C.J., Gulzar Ahmed and Sh. Azmat Saeed
Authored byNasir-Ul-Mulk
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which had directed the upgradation of respondents from Senior Auditors (BPS-16) to BPS-18 within the Inland Revenue Department. The respondents, Inland Revenue Audit Officers, sought this upgradation based on the principle of parity with Audit Officers in other departments, such as the Auditor General of Pakistan, alleging discrimination. The High Court allowed their petition, relying on an Office Memorandum dated 20-1-2001. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine several critical legal issues. The primary questions concern the maintainability of the original writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, given that the subject matter pertains to terms and conditions of service, potentially falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court will determine whether the 2001 Memorandum mandates automatic upgradation based on parity across departments, or if it requires specific administrative rationalization. The Court also seeks to address potential internal departmental anomalies and the impact of a subsequent upgradation to BPS-17 on the respondents' claims. Pending final adjudication, the operation of the impugned judgment has been suspended.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a writ petition regarding the terms and conditions of service is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, or if it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Office Memorandum dated 20-1-2001 mandate the upgradation of posts in one department based solely on the upgradation of similar posts in other departments?
  • Can an upgradation from BPS-16 to BPS-18 be granted if the posts in question have already been upgraded to BPS-17 in the interim?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
service matterwrit jurisdictionupgradation of poststerms and conditions of serviceservice tribunaladministrative paritydiscrimination in service

ORDER

'NASIR-UL-MULK, C.J.---Respondents Nos. 1 to 39 were appointed as Senior Auditors (BPS-16) in the Sales Tax Department and after reconfiguration of the Tax Department were re-designated as Inland Revenue Audit Officers. They filed Constitution Petition before the Islamabad High Court in the year 2010 for upgradation of their posts on the analogy of upgradation of posts to BPS-18 of Audit Officers in other departments like Auditor. General of Pakistan, Accountant General Punjab and Controller General of Accounts, Accountant General, Punjab. Theij Constitution Petition was allowed on the ground that since they perform similar functions as the Audit Officer in the said Departments, refusal to grant them BPS-18 would amount to discrimination. Apart from certain case-law, the Court referred to Paragraph 2(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 20-1-2001 providing for uniformity in the upgradation of similar posts in different similar departments. The Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue filed Intra Court Appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, whether:--

(i) the Writ Petition filed by the respondents under Article 199 of the Constitution was maintainable, as its subject matter related to the terms and condition of service of the respondents and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal;

(ii) Paragraph No,2(a) of the Memorandum dated 20-1-2001 can be construed in a manner that the upgradation of a post in one department of the Government would furnish a ground to the officers performing similar job in other departments for upgradation of the post, as the said provision provides that upgradation can only be made if it is considered to be necessary for bringing about rationalism in the administrative structure;

(iii) that maintaining the impugned judgment would bring about anomalies within the Inland Revenue Department as the respondents may as a result rank senior to other officers to whom they were subordinate;

(iv) the respondents could have been granted upgradation from BPS-16 to BPS-18 when in the meanwhile their posts have already been upgraded to BPS-17 on 14-4-2012.

3. The appeal be fixed for hearing after Summer Vacations, 2014. C.M.A. No,3131 of 2014 The application is allowed and operation of the impugned judgment is suspended.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.