BEFORE THE HON’BLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN

BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No. ____________/2001

Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad Shafi, Social

Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District Bahawalpur.
…….PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The District Accounts Officer, Muzaffargarh.
2. The District Accounts Officer, Multan.
3. The Accountant General, Govt. of Punjab, Lahore.
……RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC
REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That brief facts leading to the instant writ petition are that in
the year 1987, petitioner qualified Punjab Public Service
examination and was appointed as Social Welfare officer in
BPS-16, with effect from 12.1.1988 in the department of
Social Welfare, Zakat & Ushar Department Govt. of Punjab.
Accordingly petitioner was appointed as Social Welfare
Officer and was posted to U.C.D. Project Teshil Ali Pur,
District Muzaffargarh.

2. That the Governor of Punjab vide Govt. of Punjab Social

Welfare and Zakat Department Notification No. US (E)10-
28/83-VOL-II dated 28.11.1988, copy at ANNEX “A”,
upgraded the post of Social Welfare Officer from Basic pay
Contd. Page 2
 -2-

scale 16 to BPS-17 with effect from 22.10.1988 subject to

certain condition of educational qualifications, laid down in
the aforesaid Notification.

3. That as petitioner was eligible for the post of Social Welfare

Officer in BPS-17 as per terms and conditions laid down in
the Notification dated 28.11.1988 (ANNEX “A”), therefore,
petitioner was appointed as Social Welfare Officer in BPS-17
(in upgraded post) with effect from 22.10.1988 at U.C.D.
Project Tehsil Ali Pur District Muzaffargarh.

4. That on 22.10.1988 petitioner’s basic pay in BPS-17 was

fixed Rs. 2065/- per month. The annual increment to be
awarded on 1.12.1988 was not allowed by respondent No. 1
despite the fact, petitioner was eligible for the said increment
and from then, petitioner is suffering loss of one annual
increment. On 29.3.89, petitioner was posted to R.C.D.
Project Chak 5 Faiz, Multan and Last Pay Certificate (LPC)
issued by the respondent No. 1 but annual increment
admissible on 1.12.1988 was lapsed in that LPC and that loss
is still continuing.

5. That in the year 2000, petitioner was qualifying for move-over

in BPS-18, therefore, petitioner approached the respondent
No. 2 through written application dated 17.8.2000, copy at
ANNEX “B” for revision of pay after allowing one increment
admissible on 1.12.1988 but no response was given. The
Petitioner again submitted an other application dated
9.9.2000, copy at ANNEX “C” to the respondent No. 2, who
vide letter No. DAO.MH. GADI.P-13/Has/1041 dated
20.9.2000, copy at ANNEX “D”, demanded relevant/
suppository documents regarding petitioner’s claim which
were supplied but respondent No. 2 returned in original vide
No. DAO.MH. GADI.H.M.1048 dated 3.10.200, copy at
ANNEX “E”, with remarks that as petitioner was under Audit
Control of respondent No. 1 at that time, therefore, petitioner
may approach to District Accounts Officer Muzaffargarh.
Contd. Page 3
 -3-

6. That accordingly petitioner submitted his claim regarding

grant of one annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988,
before the respondent No. 1, who vide No. DAO/MG/
GAD/HM/181 dated 12.10.2000, copy of impugned order at
ANNEX “F”, returned the case with remarks, which are
reproduced as under: -

“Returned in original with remarks that it is

intimated that annual increment on 1.12.1988
cannot be allowed on the basis of (option) re-
fixation of pay as the benefit of pay is more than
one increments of BPS-17”

7. That refusal of respondent No. 1 to allow one annual

increment on 1.12.1988 is clear cut violation of the Govt. of
Punjab Finance Department Notification No. FD.PC-3-1/83
Pt-II dated 6.5.1986, copy at ANNEX “G” wherein it was
decided that, where a post has been upgraded between 2nd
June to 30th November of a Calendar Year, the increment of
such a post should be allowed re-fixation of pay with
reference to his national pay in the lower scale on 1st
December of that year subject to the exercise of an option by
the incumbent of the post.

8. That Accountant General Punjab, vide letter No. PR (C)/

VOL-V, 83-87/HM/153 dated 3.4.1991, copy at ANNEX “H”
declared that benefit of re-fixation of pay on the 1st December
year is admissible only to those officers/officials whose
promotion/up-gradation of post falls between 2nd June and
30the November of a Calendar year. The petitioner’s case is of
identical nature, as petitioner’s post was up-graded with effect
from 22.10.1988, therefore, petitioner stands entitled for the
benefit of re-fixation of pay on 1st December 1988 after
allowing one annual increment in BPS-17.

9. That Mr. Asghar Ali Gorchani, Social Welfare Officer,

Multan, was benefited from the outcome of above mentioned
Notification dated 6.5.1986 (ANNEX “G”) and his annual
Contd. Page 4
 -4-

Revised Pay Fixation with Annual Increment had been

finalized with effect from 1.12.1988. It is well-settled
principle of law that person similarly situated be treated
similarly. Further, Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan guaranteed equal protection of law but unfortunately,
petitioner is being given discriminatory treatment by not
allowing annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 in BPS-
17 and re-fixation of pay accordingly.

10. That petitioner’s case is not barred by time as petitioner is

suffering loss of one annual increment till to-date and it is
continuous loss.

11. That respondent No. 1 under legal obligation to refix the pay
of Govt. servant on promotion/up-gradation. Refusal of
respondent No. 1 to allow annual increment admissible on
1.12.1988 is not a departmental order, therefore, petitioner
cannot avail departmental remedy of appeal.

12. That at present petitioner is serving in Hasil Pur form the last
three months, but his L.P.C. is yet pending with respondent
No. 2, therefore, petitioner could not get his salary since his
transfer to Hasil Pur and is facing financial hardships. To over
come financial crisis, last month, petitioner sold his motor
cycle. Certainly L.P.C. will be issued by the respondent No. 2,
once Issue of annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 and
re-fixation of revised pay is solved by the respondent No. 1.

13. That denial on the part of respondent No. 1, regarding annual

increment admissible on 1.12.1988 is ab-initio, void illegal
and without lawful authority and based on malafide.

14. That no alternate, speedy and efficacious remedy is available

to the petitioner except to invoke the Constitutional
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this petition.

In view of the above respectful submissions, it is

most humbly prayed that above-titled writ petition may
very kindly be accepted, impugned order dated
Contd. Page 5
 -5-

12.10.2000 (ANNEX “F”) passed by respondent No. 1

may graciously be declared ab-initio, void, illegal,
without lawful authority and jurisdiction and may
kindly be set aside.
It is further prayed that respondents may kindly
be directed to grant the petitioner one annual increment
admissible on 1.12.1988 in BPS-17 after up-gradation
of post with effect from 22.10.1988, in view of Govt. of
Punjab Finance Department Notification dated 6.5.1986
(ANNEX “G”) and revised pay fixation with annual
increment may graciously be finalized with effect from
1.12.1988.
Any other relief for which petitioner is entitled
under the law and as per circumstances of the case,
same may very kindly be awarded to the petitioner in
the interest of justice.

HUMBLE PETITIONER,

Dated ___Jan’ 2001

(MALIK MUHAMMAD YOUNUS)

Through: -
Muhammad Amin Malik,
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified that as per instructions of our
client, it is the first writ petition on the
subject matter.
Advocate
Law Books: -
1. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Estacode Punjab.
Advocate
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2001

Malik Muhammad Younus Vs. D.I.O. Muzaffargarh, etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad
Shafi, Social Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District
Bahawalpur.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled petition are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In
W.P. No.____________/2001

Malik Muhammad Younus Vs. D.I.O. Muzaffargarh, etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:-
That certified copies of Annexures “A to H” are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.

APPLICANT,

Dated: __________
(Malik Muhammad Younus)

Through: -
Muhammad Amin Malik,
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In
W.P. No.____________/2001

Humayun Irshad etc Vs. Govt. of Punjab etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad
Shafi, Social Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District
Bahawalpur.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled application are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________/2001

Humayun Irshad etc Vs. Govt. of Punjab etc.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Copy of Notification. A
6 Copy of application dated 17.8.2000 B
7 Copy of application dated 9.9.2000 C
8 Copy of letter dated 20.9.2000 D
9 Copy of letter dated 3.10.2000 E
10 Copy of impugned order F
dated 12.10.2000
11 Copy of Notification dated 6.5.1986 G
12 Cop of letter dated 3.4.99. H
13 Dispensation Application.
14 Affidavit.
15 Vakalatnama
PETITIONER,
Dated: ____________
Through: -
Muhammad Amin Malik,
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.