Pakistan Case Law
2000 PLD Supreme Court 61

THE SECRETARY, RAILWAYS BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ISLAMABAD and otherss vs MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR RANA

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2000 PLD Supreme Court 61
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.845‑L of 1999
Date1999-09-14
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan, Sh. Ijaz Nisar
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17-4-1999 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent's service appeal regarding the grant of Basic Pay Scale 15 (BPS-15) from an earlier date was accepted. The core legal question was whether a basic pay scale granted to a civil servant by the competent authority could be subsequently modified or delayed to his disadvantage based on an advisory opinion from the Finance Division. The Supreme Court held that once a basic pay scale has been allowed to a civil servant by the competent authority with effect from a specific date, it cannot be altered or changed to his disadvantage merely on the basis of subsequent advice from the Finance Division. The Court established the principle that orders of a competent authority granting financial benefits cannot be arbitrarily undermined by departmental advisory opinions, and dismissed the petition as it involved an individual grievance without any substantial question of public importance.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a basic pay scale granted to a civil servant by the competent authority can be modified or changed to his disadvantage on the basis of an advice from the Finance Division?
  • Does an individual service grievance regarding pay scales without involving a substantial legal question of public importance warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to the higher pay scale from the date sanctioned by the competent authority notwithstanding subsequent negative departmental opinions?
service tribunalbasic pay scalecivil servantdepartmental representationfinance division advicecompetent authority

SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 17-4-1999, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, in Appeal No,780-L of 1997.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Muhammad Zubair Rana respondent, who is a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) in Pakistan Railways School, Lahore, was granted BPS-15 with effect from 16-5-1989, vide an Endorsement No,561-E/97/P.SPL, dated 30-9-1989. The respondent's grievance was that he is entitled to BPS-15 with effect from 1-7-1983, as per Government Notification No, F(I-IMP)/83, dated 18-8-1983. He made a departmental representation on 1-7-1993 to the authority concerned, which was dismissed vide order dated 23-8-1997. After availing of the departmental remedy he filed an appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal, which was accepted with back benefits i,e, the grant of BPS- 15 with effect from 1-7-1983. Operative part of the judgment is as follows:- "It is further to observe that the Railway Department was never instrumental in hindering payment of the pay with effect from the date of sanction by the President of Pakistan i,e, 1st July, 1983. It when consulted the Finance Division, the latter made the trouble by demonstrating negatively and disregard of the mandatory order of the President of Pakistan and, thus, the Finance Division discriminated the appellant by rendering a negative opinion. Every civil servant is supposed to work fairly and diligently but in the instant case the incumbent rendering the opinion cannot be treated to have rendered the opinion bonafidely and as such he be made to explain his position and not to create problems for others including the Government Departments. Due to his wrong advice a lot of inconvenience has been . Caused to many, waste of time and incurrence of unnecessary expenditure in litigation at many stages."

Hence, this petition by the Railway Board.

3. It is contended that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal runs counter to the policy of the Pakistan Railways and that undue benefit has been extended to the respondent in violation of the revised rules as framed by the competent Authority.

4. It is mentioned in the impugned judgment that since the basic pay scale was allowed to the respondent with effect from 1-7-1983, by the competent Authority, it could not be modified or changed to his disadvantage, merely on the basis of an advice from the Finance Division. The respondent was rightly found entitled to pay of the higher post in view of .The law quoted in the impugned judgment. The judgment of the Tribunal is based on sound reasoning and does not call for any interference particularly when it is a case of individual grievance not involving any substantial legal question of public importance. Hence, the petition is dismissed and the interim stay granted by this Court on 12-8-1999 is vacated.

Cited by 8 cases

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