Dr. MASOOD NIZAM TABASSUM vs GOVT. OF PUNJAB and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for pay protection regarding his prior service at the Punjab Social Security Institution. The petitioner argued that he was discriminated against, citing a Supreme Court precedent involving an employee of the State Bank of Pakistan who received pay protection. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pay protection based on the cited precedent. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the cited precedent was factually distinguishable. Specifically, the Court noted that the precedent involved an employee who had been granted pay protection upon joining the Federal Bureau of Statistics, only to have it arbitrarily reduced without notice, whereas the petitioner in the present case had never been granted such protection initially. Consequently, the Court held that the precedent did not apply to the petitioner's circumstances. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming that pay protection claims must be grounded in specific factual entitlement rather than mere reliance on distinguishable case law.
- Is an employee entitled to pay protection based on a precedent where the factual circumstances of the precedent are distinguishable?
- Does the denial of pay protection constitute discrimination if the petitioner cannot establish an initial grant of such protection?
ORDER
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J. -- Leave to appeal to sought against the judgment dated 31.3.2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the appeal of the petitioner seeking protection of his pay for his services rendered by him in Punjab Social Security Institution, Lahore (PESSI) from 5.1.1987 to 4.8.1992 was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the petitioner has been discriminated as another employee of the State Bank of Pakistan in similar circumstances has been given protection of his pay while the petitioner has been denied the same concession. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the copy of an Order dated 15.3.1999 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 804 of 1996.
3. We have considered the contention and have gone through the documents appended with the petition. The Tribunal, while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, had taken into consideration the aforesaid Order of this Court and came to the conclusion that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case . The observations of the Tribunal are as under:- "6. Lastly, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon Civil Appeal No. 804 of 1996. Again it does not advance the case of the appellant because it is totally distinguishable. In this case, the Supreme Court did allow the pay protection of an employee of State Bank of Pakistan (an autonomous body) on joining the service of Government of Pakistan but it was done clearly in view of the fact that on joining the Federal Bureau of Statistics Division of Pakistan Government the concerned employee was initially granted protection of his previous pay by allowing him 3 increments and subsequently the department reduced his salary to the minimum of Grade 17 without giving him even a show-cause notice. This is not the case with the present appellant. Thus -there is force in the, contention of the department that the judgment is not applicable to the present appellant."
4. We also asked the learned counsel, whether any such protection as mentioned in the aforesaid judgment of this Court was given to the petitioner. His answer was in the negative. Resultantly, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed and .