| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1955 SLG 72 1955 SLD 72 1955 PLD 160 |
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal No. 266 of 1953, decided on 30th December, 1954, from the decree of Sardar Ata Ullah, Senior Civil Judge
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J.
Aftab Hussain, for Appellant. C. M. Sharif, Assistant Advocate-General, for
Respondent
Second Appeal No. 266 of 1953, decided on 30th December, 1954, from the decree of Sardar Ata Ullah, Senior Civil Judge
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J.
Aftab Hussain, for Appellant. C. M. Sharif, Assistant Advocate-General, for
Respondent
ABBAS AHMAD
VS
PUNJAB PROVINCE
Law:
Section:
Public servant-Suit by, for arrear of salary does not lie against Crown in the absence of statutory provision or a contract. In the absence of a statutory provision or a contract, a public servant cannot sue the Crown for arrear of his salary. The High Commissioner for India and another v.1. M. Lall AIR1948PC121=PLD 1948PC150re1. . North-West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand P L D 1949 P C 1 explained. The Punjab Province v. Tara Chand A I R 1947 F C 23 ref. The Province of Bengal v. Harsha Nath Bhattacharjee P L D 1954 Dacca 57, Habib Khan v. Federation of Pakistan P L D 1954 Sind 199 and Qadir Bakhsh v. The Crown P L D 1953 Lah. 588 ref. " . . . . . the terms of service of a public servant are subject to certain qualifications dictated by public policy, no matter to what service the servant may belong, whether it be naval, military or civil, and no matter what position he holds in the service, whether exalted or humble. It is enough that the servant is a public servant, and that public policy, no matter on what ground it is based, demands the qualification. The next is that these qualifications are to be implied in the engagement of a public servant, no matter whether they have been referred to in the engagement or not. If these conclusions are justified by the authorities to which I have referred, then it would seem to follow that the rule based on public policy which has been enforced against military servants of the Crown, and which prevents such servants suing the Crown for their pay on the assumption that their only claim is on the bounty of the Crown and not for a contractual debt, must equally apply to every public servant : See Leaman v. King (1920) 3 K B 663, Smith v. Lord Advocate 25 R 112 and ;; other cases referred to. It also follows that this qualification must be read, as an implied condition into every contract between the Crown and a public servant, with the effect that, in terms of their contract, they have no right to their remuneration which can be enforced in a Civil Court of justice, and that their only remedy under their contract lies in an appeal of an official or political kind." (Observation of Lord Blackburn in 1926 S. C. 842…
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