HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. --- Through this single judgment, I propose to decide Writ Petition No. 8394 of 2009, alongwith this petition, as common question of law is involved.
2. Both these writ petitions are filed with the prayer that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed that the judgment dated 24.5.2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 3500 of 1999 in favour of the petitioners be implemented in letter and spirit and the petitioners be promoted/given proforma promotion to the rank of D.S.P. (Legal) with effect from 6.10.1999 instead of 9:7.2008 when respondent No. 4 was so promoted with all consequential benefits.
3. The.petitiOners in both the writ petitions have a -gued the case in person and submitted at the very outset if at they have no grievance at all against respondent No. 4, however, he is arrayed as respondent only to point out the discrimination meted out to them viz. Respondent No. 4, but t avoid any inconvenience to the said respondent, they are ady to delete him from the array of the respondents. Order ;cordingly.
4. So far the contentions of the petitioners are oncerned, the matter only revolves around y the .Iplementation of judgment of the Punjab. Service Tribunal lted 24.5.2001, nothing more nothing less.
5. The learned- Assistant Advocate-General as ell as the departmental representative submit that of sourse the petitioners' grievance is the same which they ave submitted through writ petition, but while granting relief D respondent. No. 4, the then Additional. Inspector-General if Police, Punjab namely Muhammad Rafique Haider ,specifically made it clear that the benefit . Extended to respondent No. 4 shall not be a precedent for others who did lot complete their basic training in time, so in the light of this condition, the departmental authorities are helpless to extend the said benefit to the petitioners.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7, - So far the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal is concerned, it shall be useful to reproduce its concluding paras, as follows:- "11. I have considered the arguments of the parties and find that the appellant and Syed ljaz Hussain Gillani were promoted as Inspector Legal on officiating basis on the same date through the same notification. It is on record that due to separation of the Prosecution Branch from the Police Department, most of the officers opted for the Law Department and only a skeleton of staff was left with the Police Department. With the result that adequate arrangement could not be made at the Police Training, Sahala for their training. On the same grounds, the request of Syed ljaz Hussain Gillani was accepted by the Inspector General of Police, while ordering his confirmation as Inspector Legal i.e.f.
30.8.1991. Although, the Inspector-General of Police in last few lines of the orders has stated that his case will not be quoted as precedent, yet this condition cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees equal treatment to all citizens. The case of the appellant, is similar to the case of said Syed ljaz Hussain Gillani on all force and is to be allowed the same treatment. It may be further added here that I have perused the A.C.R. Dossiers of the appellant, which is good/very good and does not contain any adverse remarks.
12. In view of the circumstances explained above, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is declared to be entitled to be confirmed as Inspector Legal i.e.f.
30.8.1991 with all its consequential benefits."
8. The learned ' Tribunal, while allowing the petitioners ' appeal, held in so many words that the order of the Inspector-General of Police putting a condition that the said order shall not be quoted as precedent cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is admitted today by the departmental representative that the judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal was not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, meaning thereby that the said judgment attained finality; thus it is incumbent upon the departmental authorities to implement the same in letter and spirit otherwise it can be got implemented through the course of writ, as held in M.A. Rashid Rana v. Chief Secretary (1999 PLC (CS) 623), Ghulam Sarwar v. Habib Bank Limited and another (2001 PLC (CS) 198) and Muhammad Siddique' Detho v. State Life Insurance Corporation and others (2005 PLC (CS) 946).
9. Petitioners at this stage submit that a part of benefit is also extended to the petitioner as was extended to respondent No. 4 but the judgment in its true spirit is not implemented, rather they apprehend that in the forthcoming meeting of the D.P.C. Their promotion case shall not be considered due to non-granting proforma promotion as D.S.P. (Legal) as was given to respondent No. 4
10. The contention of the departmental representative conveys a clear message that the petitioners are being 'discriminated with no fault of them particularly when similarly placed colleagues i.e. Respondent No. 4 is extended a benefit in its true spirit, but in the same breath the petitioners are being denied and in such eventuality the law laid down -by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mehr Muhammad Nawaz v. Managing Director, Small Business Corporation and 2 others (2009 SCMR 187). Comes for the rescue of the petitioners, wherein it is held:--- "Needless to emphasize that while dealing with the cases where the aggrieved party alleges discrimination. The Court cannot overlook the implication thereof. Equal treatment of all similarly situated is the, basic principle on which rests justice under the ~ law. If even-handed justice is not administered, it can have many adverse and negative effects on a society. It can cause discontentment and frustration in the social set up. There can be no denial that social justice is of objective and enshrined in our Constitution."
11. After hearing both the parties at- length and perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the same relief, which is extended to respondent No4 in its true spirit. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to implement the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 24.5.2001 in letter and spirit, the from the date when respondent No. 4 was granted.
12. It is directed that if some meeting of the D.P.C. Is scheduled in the near future, the petitioners' promotion case shall also be considered in the said D.P.C./P.S.B., after granting them the benefit of proforma promotion.
13. This judgment shall take effect within a period of two months from today, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.