SAIFUL HANAN vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding service conditions. The petitioner, a Theology Teacher who retired in 1990, sought relief on the grounds of discrimination, alleging that another teacher in a similar position had been granted a higher pay scale (BPS-15) than the BPS-9 scale he held throughout his service. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, having voluntarily accepted specific terms and conditions of service upon appointment, could subsequently claim a higher pay scale based on the upgradation of posts held by others, and whether such administrative policy matters are justiciable. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that the petitioner had accepted his appointment terms voluntarily and could not claim a higher scale as a matter of right. The Court affirmed that the upgradation of posts is an administrative policy matter, and courts cannot interfere in such policy-making, particularly where the petitioner had already retired and accepted the original terms of service.
- Can a civil servant claim a higher pay scale based on the upgradation of posts held by other employees if they voluntarily accepted their own terms of service?
- Is the upgradation of posts in an educational institution a justiciable matter for the courts?
- Can a court interfere in administrative policy matters regarding the upgradation of posts?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 23-44990.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Theology Teacher in BPS-9 on 23- 6-1970. The terms and conditions of his service were given in the appointment order. The petitioner retired from service on 15-4-1990. The grievance of the petitioner is that another Theology Teacher at Tarbela was granted BPS-15, therefore, a discrimination has been made in case of the petitioner.
The petitioner approached the Service Tribunal but his appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have considered the facts of the case.
We find that there is no order original or final of which the appellant could be aggrieved of. It is not denied that the appellant was offered the post of Theology Teacher carrying BPS-16 in 1970 and he accepted it. The fact that in some schools some Theology Teachers hold B-15 posts, in itself cannot become a cause of action to be agitated before this Tribunal. In our view, no appeal lies against this administrative policy matter. The present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine as not maintainable."
3. The petitioner then filed a Constitution petition in the High Court. His petition was dismissed by means of the impugned judgment. The reasons which weighed with the High Court are as hereunder:-- "The petitioner had voluntarily accepted the job in BPS-9 and served as such till his retirement. It was in the discretion of the respondents/authorities to upgrade the post or not and the petitioner could not legally thrust his view upon them. The upgradation of post in an Educational Institution is a policy matter and this Court sitting in Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere in the policy- making of the Department. Moreover, the petitioner has since retired and the respondents cannot be directed to accord pre-dated sanction to the upgradation of the post held by the petitioner.
Resultantly fording no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine"
4. The petitioner had himself accepted the terms and conditions of his service, therefore, there was no legal justification for the petitioner to claim BPS-15. The appointment letter with regard to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner is quite clear. There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- FAISAL NISAR Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary 2017 PLC(CS)N 35