' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- The backdrop of this writ petition is that the petitioners being employees of Scale No.2 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, were granted Grade-4 on the strength of Government Notification dated 7-9-1995 and the benefit, which was granted to the petitioners through order dated 19-1-2001 was availed but unfortunately through order dated 10-3-2001, the order dated 19-1-2001 is withdrawn which caused a serious prejudice to the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to section 10 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, the Board is the only competent authority to grant such benefit and Finance Department, Government of the Punjab could not interfere in the matter, whereas the impugned order was passed on the direction of Finance Department Government of the Punjab culminating the impugned action a nullity in the eye of law being passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Further submits that admittedly the benefit granted was availed by the petitioners, meaning thereby that the order benefiting the petitioners were acted upon accruing lawful right in their favour could not be recalled on the well-settled principle of locus poenitentiae. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents Board while passing the impugned order did not apply its independent mind rather passed the impugned order on extraneous consideration, which is sufficient ground for the interference of this Court.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General submit that the benefit granted to the petitioner was due to misunderstanding and it is well-settled law that the authority who passed the order can withdraw the same, whereas in the present case the Controlling Authority i.e. Government of the Punjab when pointed out to the Board the irregularity, the respondents Board rectified its wrong so there is no question of causing prejudice to the petitioners. Further submits that the order dated 19-1-2001 passed by the Board was to be get confirmation, which was not obtained in the impugned matter. Further submits that allowances, which were not a part of salary, could be withdrawn, however, if the petitioners felt aggrieved, they could avail alternate remedy by way of filing representation before the competent forum and as the petitioners did not avail the alternate remedy, the writ petition is not competent.
4. Argument heard. Available record perused.
5. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent regarding the availability of alternate remedy is concerned, suffice it to say that the alternate remedy, if it is not efficacious or speedy and if the grievance of the aggrieved person is a such serious in nature, which could only be resolved through the process of law by a competent Court of jurisdiction, the aggrieved' persons cannot be non-suited on this score.
6. The present case is a case of real hardship, the petitioners were suffered on account of inaction of Board Authorities, they filed writ petition in the year 2001 and now after a lapse of seven years how the petitioners can be non-suited on this hyper-technical ground, so the objection of the respondents is repelled.
7. The record reveals that the order dated 19-1-2001, where the petitioners were granted selection grade was passed by the competent authorities in exercise of its powers under section 10 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act and that orders were implemented in letter and spirit, resulting into accrual of a lawful right in favour of the petitioners, which could not be rescinded or recalled on some observations or some direction of the Finance Department of the Punjab, who otherwise had nothing to do with the affairs of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, hence the impugned order, which was obviously passed on some extraneous consideration, cannot hold the field.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out another aspect that duties of Daftries of Government of the Punjab, who were beneficiaries of the Notification dated 7-9-1995 are different than the Daftries of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, so the petitioners cannot be called similarly placed persons and they cannot be held entitled for the same relief.
9. This argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is not convincing one because according to the Board's Regulations, the Rules of Punjab Civil Servants are made applicable to the Board's employees as per provisions of Chapter 9, which is reproduced as follows:-- "The Regulations in this Chapter shall apply to all permanent whole-time employees of the Board and to such other employees as the Chairman may determine from time to time. Except where express provision to the contrary has been made in these Regulations the Punjab Civil Service Rules as applicable to Punjab Government Servants and amended from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Board".
10. After going through the provisions of these Regulations, no other conclusion can be drawn; that the benefit of Notification dated 7-9-1995 issued by the Government of the Punjab, was also available to the Board's employees as the same was adopted by the Board itself through passing order dated 19-1-2001.
11. In view of the above, the order dated 10-3-2001, whereby the order dated 19-1-2001 was cancelled/withdrawn is declared illegal, without lawful authority and the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer of the writ petition.