| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3196 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 376 of 2014
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
29.06.2022 Mr. Jam Khursheed Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Misbah Gulnar Sharif, Advocate for respondent. Syed Nazar Hussain Shah, AAG.
Writ Petition No. 376 of 2014
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
29.06.2022 Mr. Jam Khursheed Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Misbah Gulnar Sharif, Advocate for respondent. Syed Nazar Hussain Shah, AAG.
Ghulam Muhammad Mehdi
VERSUS
Federation of Pakistan, etc.
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
ORDER SHEET Precisely, the case setup by the petitioner is that he joined the respondent/CDA in the year 2008 as Inspector and at the relevant time he had three years’ active practice as an Advocate at his credit; that the CDA Board vide its decision dated 12.07.2012 approved award of “Law Graduate Qualification Allowance”, at the rate of Rs.15000/- per month with effect from 12.07.20212 and pursuant thereto, office order dated 02.04.2013 was issued; that the petitioner being eligible and qualified applied for the provision of the Allowance in the light of Board decision dated 12.07.2012 and office order dated 02.04.2013 but his request was turned down on the ground that the allowance is only meant for officers of BS17 and above. The petitioner further maintained that after refusal of his request, he along with other colleagues submitted an application through proper channel which, after due process, was approved by the Chairman CDA vide office order dated 06.06.2013 whereby he along with his colleague namely Zaheer was allowed benefit of the allowance w.e.f. 12.07.2012. The petitioner further asserted that thereafter bill for the payment of the allowance along with arrears amounting to Rs.102097/- was submitted to the respondent No.3 (Director Accounts CDA) who only issued allowance of Rs.15000/- for the month of July, 2013 by considering it a fresh bill and the monthly allowance was then added in his monthly salary and pay slip as well. According to the petitioner, he requested the respondents many times for the payment of arrears as claimed but not only his request was turned down, the monthly allowance, being disbursed had also been stopped and discontinued which constrained him to file the instant writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds taken in the memo of the petition argued that the benefit in terms of allowance, once approved/granted and had taken effect cannot be taken away particularly when the petitioner fulfills the prescribed eligibility criteria and was also held eligible as reveals through the office order dated 06.06.2013. According to…