HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.-Through this single judgment I propose to decide Writ Petitions Nos.
9215/2007 to 9219/2007 along with this petition, as common questions of facts and law involve.
2. Petitioners in all these petitions pray that respondents be directed to implement the judgment of the. Punjab Service Tribunal dated 22.1.2004 in Appeals Nos. 1947/2003 to 1949/2003 as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated.23.1.2006 in Civil Appeals Nos. 1259- 1/2004, 1286-1/2004 and 1287-1/2004 by granting the annual increment to the petitioners for the period during which they served as untrained PTC teachers i.e. From 2.6.1983 to 21.3.1989 and also by fixing the pay of the petitioners accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as untrained PTC teachers in BS-7 in their respective schools on the recommendations of Department Selection Committee particularly keeping in view the qualification of a PTC teacher as matriculate plus certificate of PTC but at the time of selection they were only matriculate. However, with the passage of time all the petitioners obtained PTC qualification by undergoing a course successfully which resulted in the grant of certificates of PTC in their favour.
3. Lt is submitted by the learned counsel that the dispute has arisen in the present controversy is that all the petitioners during the period when they were untrained PTC teacher demanded annual increments but the same were refused with the remarks that untrained teachers are not entitled to annual increments for the period they served as untrained teachers. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners persuaded the departmental authorities but with no result. However, certain colleagues of the petitioners filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal who, vide its judgment dated 22.1.2004 held those appellants entitled for the increments claimed for and while deciding the appeals it was held by the Service Tribunal that any deviation from the law fixing the pay of the PTC teacher would amount to a big infraction and the specific provisions of Punjab Civil Servants Act which are applicable in the petitioners' case cannot be deviated in any manner because in Section 16 of the said Act the word 'pay' used was interpreted as raising by periodical increments from minimum to a maximum, so in view of that there is no reason why the said dictum may not be followed in the present cases particularly in presence of a corresponding provision in Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. This judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 23.1.2006 the apex Court dismissed the Government's civil petitions and confirmed the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal holding that the Government cannot go beyond the scope of Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 by fixing pay to the PTC teachers, meaning .Thereby that the apex Court once for all decided a question of law i.e. Salary is to be fixed according to Section 16 of the Act of 1974 and no one can deviate from that.
4. The learned counsel further submits that he is before this Court only for the enforcement of settled law in cases of his clients.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate General, assisted by the departmental representative, opposed the writ petitions on a sole ground that there is a bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in disposal of these cases by the High Court and as such the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
6. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
7. The learned Assistant Advocate General after consulting the record could not controvert the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal and its confirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in identical cases of similarly placed employees: However, in respect of his objection of maintainability, suffice it to say that withholding of emoluments and those too in violation of Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 in fact suffers from inherent vice.
8. Lt is well-settled by now that "principal object behind all legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice legal precepts were devised in order to view to impart certainty, consistency and uniformity to the administration of justice and to secure same against arbitrariness, errors of individual judgment and mala tides.''
9. Ln support of this proposition, the reliance can be safely made on a reported judgment in the case of Mrs. Munawar Sani v. Director Army Education (1991 SCMR 135). This case was related to a civil servant and the aggrieved civil servant approached the High Court for the redressal of grievance. The point of jurisdiction was raised even up to the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was resolved in the following terms:- "Question whether she should approach the Civil Court or the Service Tribunal for this purpose was not very pertinent in the face of bound down obligation of the authorities to satisfy her claim themselves without the necessity of driving a needy litigant from pillar to post."
10. Ln another case reported as Administrator, District Council Larkana and other v. Ghulab Khan and 5 others (2001 SCMR 1320) the objection of bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is repelled.
11. So far the claim of the petitioners is concerned, not only in CPLAs No. 1259 and others of 2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan resolved the matter through order dated 23.1.2006 in favour of the PTC teachers but earlier in Civil Appeals Nos. 147, 118 and 595 to 613A of 2000, three Member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the same relying on different judgments and held that "if a civil servant is made to work against a post, he becomes entitled to the running pay scale of that post".
12. Apart from this, there is another aspect of the case that according to Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, no Court or authority can deviate from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan rather it is the foremost duty of every "Court/executive authority to follow and implement the same in letter and spirit and Undisputedly in the present case a question of law was resolved once for all by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan not only once but twice, hence the provisions of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan cannot be overlooked in any manner which are reproduced as follows:- "189. Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other Courts in Pakistan.
190. All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court."
13. I can also take strength for resolving the present controversy from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185) and can safely hold that the benefits once extended in similar cases to the employees but of course on the directions of the Tribunal and the apex Court does not call for being ignored in other similar situations/causes as held in Hameed Akhtar Mazi's case supra.
14. So far the proposition of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is concerned i.e. That the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding throughout Pakistan, reliance can be made on a judgment reported as Syed Nazar Abbas Jaffri v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab and another (2007 PLC (C.S,) 632).
15. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the writ petitions are allowed, the respondents are directed to pay the annual increments to the petitioners for the period during which they served as untrained PTC teachers and then fix their pay accordingly.
16. Lt is also directed that the arrears of the said period be released to the petitioners within a period of three- months positively under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.