Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner, who was appointed as ASI w,e,f, 1.1.1985, admitted to list "E", promoted as SI w,e,f, 8.8.1989, made efforts for his confirmation as ASI and as SI from the date of his appointment/promotion but could not receive any positive response, resulting into filing of this Writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the colleagues of the petitioner have been benefited i,e, confirmation from the date of their appointment/promotion but the petitioner is being discriminated with no fault of him. Further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held in Inspector-General of Police, Lahore vs. Qayyum Nawaz Khan (1999 SCM R 1594) that the date of confirmation cannot be different from the date of appointment/promotion", hence the petitioner is entitled for the same relief as was extended to the petitioner's colleagues particularly when the law is settled by the Apex Court.
3. On the other hand the learned AAG submits that the writ petition is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the petitioner has no case at all for his confirmation, as the petitioner could not qualify the Intermediate Course, so there is no question of petitioner's confirmation as ASI what to talk of confirmation as SI.
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. To resolve this controversy I have to confine myself to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Inspector-General of Police, Lahore vs. Qayyum Nawaz Khan (1999 SCM R 1594), wherein it is held that "date of confirmation cannot be different from the date of appointment/promotion".
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed/promoted as ASI on 1.1.1985, following the law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner is held entitled for confirmation as ASI w,e,f, 1.1.1985. Furthermore, in a recent judgment passed by the Apex Court dated 29.04.2008 in cases of number of employees titled "Government of Punjab, Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore & others vs. Sameena Parveen & others", wherein it is held.
"It was held by this Court in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCM R 1185) that if a Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant who litigated, and there were other civil servants, who may not have taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the said decision be extended to other civil servants also, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum. This view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Tara Chand and others . v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi and others (2005 SCM R 499) and it was. held that according to Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law."
7. On the strength of law supra I have no other option except to allow this writ petition, the respondents are directed to issue confirmation order of the petitioner as ASI w,e,f, 1.1.1985. The writ petition is allowed with all consequential relief.