GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD
The matter arises from petitions filed by the Government of the Punjab against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the method of granting higher national pay scales to Civil Judges and District and Sessions Judges under the Pay Revision Rules, 1973. The core legal question is whether the entry of 15 percent of Civil Judges into N.P.S.-18 and District and Sessions Judges into N.P.S.-20 is automatic based purely on seniority or requires due consideration of fitness and suitability of the incumbents. The Supreme Court held that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance as entry into higher pay scales opens up further chances of promotion and requires consideration of suitability, suspending the Tribunal's judgment and granting leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that movement into a higher pay scale quota which affects promotional pathways cannot be treated as entirely automatic without considering the incumbent's record and suitability.
- Whether the entry of Civil Judges and District and Sessions Judges into higher national pay scales based on a 15 percent quota is automatic on the basis of seniority?
- Does the grant of a higher national pay scale that opens up further chances of promotion require consideration of the fitness and suitability of the incumbents?
- Pay Revision Rules, 1973
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--Under the Pay Revision Rules, 1973, 15 per cent of the cadre of Civil Judges in N.P.S.-17 is to be in N.P.S.-18 while a similar percentage of the cadre of District and Sessions Judges in N.P.S.-19 is to be in N.P.S.-20. A question arose before the Punjab Service Tribunal in the respondents' appeals whether the entry in N.P.S.-18 of the Civil Judges and in N.P.S.-20 of the District and Sessions Judges in the 15 per cent quota can be allowed automatically on the basis of seniority or after due consideration of the fitness of the incumbents concerned. The Tribunal held, in the case of respondent Mumtaz Hussain Malik, that: - '
"We do not find any provision in the said Rules which anywhere bars the appellant to enjoy N.P.S-18 made effective from 1-3-1972, on the ground of 15% of the cadre of Civil Judges. The grant of N . P . S . -18 on the basis of 15% quota is not a promotion and this fact has been re-affirmed by the respondent-Government itself in para. 4 of Notification No. 1-13/79-SOS (IV), dated 27-1-1983."
This notification, dated 27-1-1983, no doubt, towards the end says that "the grant of N.P.S.-18 to a specified number of Civil Judges in Grade 17 is not promotion and the case does not fall within the purview of Provincial Selection Board"; but it is mentioned in the same notification that the cases of certain Civil Judges had been ignored. In an earlier notification, dated 8-10-1980 to Civil Judges had similarly been ignored on account of unsatisfactory- record. Mr. Khalil Ramdey, appearing for the petitioner/ Government, urges that the entry from N.P.S.-17 to N.P S.-18 of Civil Judges and from N.P.S.-19 to N.P.S.-20 of District and Sessions Judges is not automatic and without consideration of their suitability, because their entry into the higher scale is bound to open up further chances of promotion to them.
2. The question raised thus does involve a substantial question of law of public importance, requiring consideration by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in these petitions, which shall be made ready and fixed for hearing before the end of the current year. Meanwhile, the judgment of the Tribunal shall remain suspended.