Back benefits, allowance

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS)N 12 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : NIAZ MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LADY READING HOSPITAL, PESHAWAR
Promotion made in violation of seniority list---Back benefits, allowance of---Petitioner, Ward Orderly of the Hospital, claimed that as per the seniority list prepared for the Class-IV, the respondents had been promoted to the posts of Junior Clerks, while ignoring the seniority of the petitioner---Validity---Petitioner, despite being at Serial No. 4 in the seniority list and fit, had not been promoted; while the respondents, who were junior to him in seniority , had been promoted to higher scale---Department Selection and Promotion Committee of the Hospital had failed to adhere to the seniority list and promoted the Class-IV employees illegally without observing the law/policy and seniority order for promotion---High Court declaring the promotion as null and void set aside the same and directed the authorities to reconstitute the Selection and Promotion Committee for approval of promotion strictly in accordance with the seniority list; and held the petitioner to be entitled to back benefits---Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS)N 10 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : Dr. MUNIR KHAN KHATTAK
Side Opponent : CHANCELLOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
Ss. 28 (2) & 48---University of Agriculture (Peshawar)---Department of Rural Social Sciences---Appointment of Dean of Faculty---Summary for appointment---Scope---University authorities recommended names of three senior professors from the Faculty for appointment of Dean---Petitioner who was at serial No. 1 of summary list was not selected but respondent who was junior to the petitioner was appointed as Dean of the Faculty---Contention of petitioner-employee was that he had been ignored without any rhyme and reason---Validity---seniority and length of service or existence of the name of an incumbent at the senior part of summary list was not the sole criteria for appointment of Dean of Faculty---Had it been essential for the Authority to select the candidate at serial No. 1 of the summary list then there would have been no need to send three names to the same---Chancellor of the university was vested with the authority to select one of the most suitable candidate from the summary list consisting of three senior faculty members---High Court could not substitute opinion of the appointing authority on mere allegation of mala fide which was a question of fact---Petitioner-employee had been considered for appointment by the competent authority---Respondent was found fit and suitable for appointment as Dean of the Faculty from the panel of candidates---No statutory rules had been violated by the department---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the process of appointment of Dean of the Faculty---Nothing was on record with regard to the mala fide of the department in appointing Dean of the Faculty---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS) 1342 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUDASSAR HASSAN RANA
Side Opponent : The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Secretary Defence, Islamabad
Art. 199---Quo warranto, writ of---Maintainability---Promotion---Requirements---Employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation---Promotion on the basis of higher qualification---Discrimination--- Reasonable classification--- Respondents were promoted on the basis of degrees of MBA/MPA/MAS---Contention of petitioners was that requisite 'No objection certificate from employer was not obtained by the respondents before getting admission in the Institution for taking degrees in question---Validity---Two different promotion channels viz one on the basis of seniority -cum-fitness along with minimum qualification and other on the basis of MBA/MPA/MAS degrees was being followed in the Corporation---Authority had introduced a reasonable classification amongst the employees who were holding MBA/MPA/MAS degrees---When classification was reasonable, same could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court while pressing into service the principle of discrimination---Incentives for the persons having MBA/MPA/MAS degrees had been introduced in the Corporation through amendments---Petitioners had not challenged the basic policy but the subsequent amendments therein---High Court under the constitutional jurisdiction could not undo a policy framed by the competent authority unless same was against any Fundamental Right or provision of a legislative piece---Competent authority had introduced policies for better output from its subordinates with regard to nature and requirements of the duties of a post---Completion of MBA/MPA/MAS degrees by the respondents, without prior permission of authority, could only be considered as procedural flaw for which competent authority could proceed but same could not be used to shatter the credibility of degree---Promotion against a particular post could not be claimed as a matter of right rather competent authority reserved the right to adjudge the eligibility of a person for promotion by formulating a policy---Petitioners did not possess MBA/MPA/MAS degrees and they could not claim promotion on the analogy of respondents---Degrees of respondents had already been validated by Higher Education Commission---Federal Investigation Agency could not be allowed to re-open the matter under the garb of complaint with regard to said degrees---Continuation of proceedings before Federal Investigation Agency would amount to double jeopardy---Investigation Agency had no justification to proceed with the complaint in circumstances---Petitioners were serving-employees of the Corporation and they had challenged the promotion policy issued by the department---Terms and conditions of employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation were governed by non-statutory Rules---Constitutional petition, in circumstances was not maintainable---Proceedings pending before Federal Investigation Agency were ordered to be quashed---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.