| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 651 2016 SLD 651 2016 PLC 530 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-1016 of 2015, decided on 1stOctober, 2015. Dates of hearing: 10th and 16th September,2015.
MUNIB AKHTAR AND AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JJ
Shaikh Liaquat Hussain Standing Counsel along with Ms. Nasreen Ali, Director General Bol for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No. D-1016 of 2015, decided on 1stOctober, 2015. Dates of hearing: 10th and 16th September,2015.
MUNIB AKHTAR AND AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JJ
Shaikh Liaquat Hussain Standing Counsel along with Ms. Nasreen Ali, Director General Bol for
Respondents.
ABDUL KHALIQUEVSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Board of Investment and 4 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973--- ----R. 3(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.25 & 199---Upgradation of post on the basis of other officials of similarly placed in other departments/organizations---Terms and conditions of service---Discrimination---Vested right---Scope---Petitioner being Public Relation Officer (BS-16) in Board of Investment had sought upgradation of post in BS-17---Contention of petitioner-employee was that Public Relation Officers/Information Officers/Protocol Officers were being inducted in Federal/Provincial Government in BS-17 whereas in Board of Investment the Public Relation Officers were inducted through Federal Public Service Commission in BS-16 and said method of induction was discriminatory---Validity---Petitioner-employee had been claiming upgradation from BS-16 to BS-17 on the basis that other officials similarly placed in some other departments/organizations of Federal/Provincial Government were being inducted in BS-17 instead of BS-16 which could not be said to be a terms and conditions of service---One had to establish that the nature of work being performed was essentially the same for seeking relief on the basis of discrimination---Equal protection of law without any distinction had been guaranteed by the Constitution---Equality clause in the Constitution did not prohibit the framing of different laws in different circumstances---Only 'irrational' or 'arbitrary discrimination' would amount to 'legislative despotism' and same would offend Art. 25 of the Constitution---When 'statutory functionary' had acted with mala fide or in a partial, unjust, oppressive and/or 'discriminatory manner' then its' action could be challenged for violation of equality clause of the Constitution but not otherwise---Petitioner-employee had not pinpointed out violation of any specific provision of law/Rules which could be challenged/questioned on the touchstone of Art.25 of the Constitution---Petitioner-employee had failed to establish any 'vested right' violated by the authorities---Posts of Public Relation Officers advertised by the Federal Public Service Commission were in grade 16---Petitioner-employee…