Law: Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1974

Section: 3

Civil service--- ----Pensionary benefits, grant of---Rule of propriety---Equal treatment---Scope---Identical issue had been decided by the High Court which was approved by the Supreme Court---Rule of propriety was applicable to the petitioners-employees as their junior was benefited and they should have been benefited at part by extending equal treatment in terms of of the Supreme Court---Objection of authorities that petitioners being civil servants should approach the Service Tribunal was never raised by them in the case of their junior---Authorities had denied benefits to the petitioners which was discriminatory and required interference by the High Court---Authority were directed by the High Court to award the pensionary benefits as well as increments in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of their junior---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Hameed Akhter Niazi v. Secretary, Estt. Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185 ref. Government of Punjab and others v. Sameena Parveen and others 2009 SCMR 1 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.--- By this common judgment we propose to dispose of both the petitions, as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions. 2. The case of petitioners in Constt. Petition No.D-655/2014 is that petitioner No.1 Rab Nawaz Tunio was appoint as Lecturer in BPS-17 on 27.3.1974 and on reaching maximum pay scale was given move over in BPS-18 on 01.07.1983, then he reached to maximum scale on 01.12.1987 and the respondents had not allowed him annual increments in the years 1988, 1989 and 1990; subsequently he was promoted in BPS-18 on 01.07.1991, when the scales were revised in year 1991, therefore his pay was re-fixed and annual increment in BPS-18 was given to him for 1991. He reached to maximum scale in BPS-18, therefore, he was awarded move over in BPS-19. Again he reached to maximum scale of BPS-19 on 01.12.1997 and his next increment was due on 01.12.1998, which was not given to him. Later, his move-over was regularized as duly promoted to BPS-19. The respondents denied him move over to BPS-20 and allowed him personal pay as per…