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 challenging the denial of a higher pay scale (BPS-15) for his position as a Theology Teacher. The petitioner, who served in BPS-9 from his appointment in 1970 until his retirement in 1990, alleged discrimination because another teacher in a different location held a higher grade. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed his appeal, ruling that the matter involved administrative policy rather than an actionable grievance, and that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the terms of his appointment. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that the petitioner, having voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of his service at the time of appointment, had no legal basis to claim a higher pay scale retrospectively. The Court further affirmed that the up-gradation of posts is an administrative policy matter outside the scope of judicial interference, particularly when the petitioner has already retired from service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a civil servant claim a higher pay scale based on discrimination if they voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of their appointment?
- Is the up-gradation of a post in an educational institution a justiciable matter or an administrative policy matter?
- Can a court interfere in administrative policy decisions regarding the up-gradation of posts?
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 23-4-1990.
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 fads 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 up-gradation 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 up-gradation of the post held by the petitioner.
Resultantly finding 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.