| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4852 2025 SLD 4852 = 2025 PLC 861 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.2396 of 2019, decided on 26th February, 2025.
Before Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, J
Muhammad Rustam Malik for Petitioners. Ms. Shaista Tabassum Khan Sultan Puri, Assistant Attorney General. Dr. Muhammad Ismail Hasni, Section Officer, Ministry of Finance.
Writ Petition No.2396 of 2019, decided on 26th February, 2025.
Before Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, J
Muhammad Rustam Malik for Petitioners. Ms. Shaista Tabassum Khan Sultan Puri, Assistant Attorney General. Dr. Muhammad Ismail Hasni, Section Officer, Ministry of Finance.
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 22 others
VERSUS
FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY through Director General, Islamabad and 2 others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 25,199
Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.25---Civil service---Up-gradation of different posts---Discrimination--Policy decision of Executive---Interference by Court---Scope---Constitutional petition---Scope---Petitioners alleged that the BPS of ASI, HC and Constables in other federal departments had been up-graded from BPS-09, BPS-07 and BPS-05 to BPS-11, BPS-09 and BPS-07, respectively, however, ASI, HC and Constables Serving in FIA were still in BPS-9, BPS-07 and BPS-05, respectively, which was promoting a sense of despair and discrimination---Petition was filed to consider the petitioners for up-gradation to the posts of Constable from BPS-5 to 7, Head Constable from BPS-7 to 9 and ASI from BPS-9 to 11, respectively, by declaring the inaction on the part of respondents as illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority---Held, that up-gradation of a post is not a vested right, rather it stems from a policy decision intended to benefit a particular set of employees under the scheme embedded in the policy---Up-gradation cannot be mixed up with promotion---In the case of up-gradation, the employee continues to hold the same post without any change in his duties, but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to mitigate the distress associated with stagnation due to a lack of progression or promotional avenues---Once the Government announces a policy, it is also responsible for enforcing such policy across the board to accord the benefit of the policy to all those who are eligible under it and may be benefited because of it---No doubt, the Court cannot interfere in the policymaking domain of the Government, but when a widespread and comprehensive policy is announced to benefit employees, it should be implemented bigheartedly and generously, without adding any ifs and buts or discrimination that could stifle the main objective of the policy--In the present cases, not only the department of the respondents fully supported the up-gradation, but also communicated with the concerned quarter in order to espouse the interest of their employees---Equal treatment with equal opportunity is a cornerstone for an egalitarian society, while acts of discrimination in the workplace…