| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 657 2020 SLD 657 2020 SCMR 436 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 661 of 2018, decision & hearing Date : 13-01-2020 (Against judgment Dated 25.01.2017 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 4088 of 2014)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Faisal Fareed, Additional A.G. Punjab, Shahbaz Ahmed Sheikh, Law Officer, Finance Department, Punjab, Amanullah, Dy. Secy., Government of Punjab, Finance Department, Punjab and Saif-ur Murtaza, AIG (HCR)
Respondent(s) by: Hafiz M. T
Civil Appeal No. 661 of 2018, decision & hearing Date : 13-01-2020 (Against judgment Dated 25.01.2017 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 4088 of 2014)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Faisal Fareed, Additional A.G. Punjab, Shahbaz Ahmed Sheikh, Law Officer, Finance Department, Punjab, Amanullah, Dy. Secy., Government of Punjab, Finance Department, Punjab and Saif-ur Murtaza, AIG (HCR)
Respondent(s) by: Hafiz M. T
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS
VS
ZIA-UR-REHMAN
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil service--- ----Traffic warden---Additional basic pay---Scope---"Letter of offer for appointment" and "Letter of appointment"---Interpretation was appointed as a Traffic Warden (BS-14)---Before issuance of the appointment letter, a letter of offer of appointment as Traffic Warden (BS-14) was issued wherein it was mentioned that appointee shall receive emoluments of one additional basic pay plus 20 days fixed daily allowance and other allowances sanctioned by the Government from time to time---However, vide a subsequent notification the said emoluments were frozen to the levels existing at a prior date----Whether the additional basic pay formed part of the basic emolument of the respondent and therefore it was subject to increase---Held, that "letter of offer of appointment" was never accepted by the respondent and it was in the nature of an intimation---Had the respondent accepted the said letter, he may have had an arguable case---Appointment of the respondent was made through a "letter of appointment" as Traffic Warden (BS-14) and it was pursuant to and in acceptance of the terms and conditions of the said letter that the respondent joined the department---Said letter of appointment undertook a promise of grant of BS-14 with other emoluments at par with the Punjab Highway Patrol Police and as enhanced/ supplemented by the Government from time to time---Even otherwise correct meaning and interpretation of the "letter of offer of appointment" as well as the "letter of appointment" in essence meant the same things namely that the respondent would be entitled to draw his pay in BS-14 with other emoluments at par with the Punjab Highway Patrol Police---Furthermore the respondent never challenged the notification of the Provincial Government by virtue of which special pay and allowances were frozen at the level of an earlier date---Said freezing was applicable to all employees of the Provincial Government including the Provincial Police---Appeal was allowed and of Service Tribunal was set aside. Government of NWFP v. I.A. Sherwani PLD 1994 SC 72 and Secretary, Railways Board v. Muhammad Zubair Rana PLD 2000 SC 61 distinguished. Abdul Hameed v. Special…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492