Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in BS-17 in the Punjab Textbook Board on 16.3.1995 by the order of the competent authority, her case was referred to the Board of Directors of the Punjab Textbook Board for her regularization as per requirement of Board's Regulations. The said Board regularized the petitioner's service through order dated 2.7.1995 and that too after interviewing the petitioner by the scrutiny Committee constituted by Respondent No,
1. Petitioner served the Board without any complaint whatsoever for a considerable long time however on 16.6.2000 a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that her appointment was made on the direction of the Minister so why she should not be terminated from service. The petitioner refuted the allegations but the petitioner was terminated through order dated 16.10.2000 alongwith her certain other colleagues.
2. The petitioner's colleagues agitated the matter before different forums and finally the employees of the Board holding the post of grade-1 to 15 get relief from the department on the strength of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Muhammad Akhtar Sherani v. Punjab Textbook Board (2004 SCMR. 1077).
3. It is to be noted that the petitioner's colleagues namely Miss Saman Jameel and Rana Tariq Mahmood approached the then Chief Minister who issued a directive for their reinstatement and that too on the strength of law laid down by the apex Court supra whereas the petitioner continuously persuaded for the redressal of her grievance before the Board Authorities.
4. Miss Saman Jameel and Rana Tariq Mahmood were reinstated and one of their colleague namely Anjum Mumtaz approached this Court through WP.No, 6579/2007 her writ petition was allowed through order dated 14.4.2008 and the relevant Para of the order dated 14.4.2008 shall be useful to be reproduced:-- "It is really unfortunate that all similarly placed persons have been benefited by the respondents but the only petitioner is running from pillar to post for the redressal of her grievance which is not warranted under law on any ground. In the light of above, Respondent No, 1 is directed to give the benefit of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 1.1.2004 and reinstate the petitioner in the same manner which was adopted in. case of Tariq Mehmood, Saman Jamil and Mrs. Fareeda Sadiq."
5. Aggrieved by the order of this Court, Punjab Textbook Board filed CPLA before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan but the leave was refused and the order of this Court was confirmed and later on, the said Anjum Mumtaz was reinstated by the Punjab Textbook Board.
6. The petitioner approached this Court with a precise submission that as her colleagues namely Miss Saman Jamil, Rana Tariq Mehmood, Anjum Mumtaz and Saiqa Khanam have been reinstated so being a similarly placed colleague she be also granted the same benefit and an appropriate writ be issued in favour of the petitioner in the light of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and by this Court be given effect by invoking the principle of consistency.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at length and submits with vehemence that if a Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of an employee which covers not only the case of that employee who litigated but also all other employees who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case the dictates and rules of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment be extended to others, who may not be the party to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Court. Further submits that the petitioner worked continuously without break for a period of almost five years but she was terminated illegally on a ground that she was an appointee of a Minister ignoring the record of the Board that the petitioner was interviewed by the duly selected scrutiny Committee, the petitioner's eligibility was assessed and then the petitioner's suitability was determined in its true perspective and if at all some irregularity is found in the petitioner's appointment and that too after a lapse of five years continuous service of the petitioner, then the petitioner could not have been a sufferer rather the responsible should have been taken to task. Adds that it is a clear case of discrimination and according to Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 this Court can redress the petitioner's grievance if it is found that the petitioner is actually discriminated. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied on Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCMR 1185), Muhammad Abbas v. Government of Punjab and others (2005 PLC (CS) 671), Government of Punjab, through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others v. Sameena Parveen and others (2009 SCMR 1) and Muhammad Haleem and, another v. General Manager (Operation) Pakistan Railways Headquarter, Lahore and others (2009 SCMR 339).
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was not a party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan when the review of Muhammad Akhtar Sherani was allowed so she cannot be given benefit of that judgment. Further submits that so far the case of discrimination is concerned Miss Saman Jamil and Rana Tariq Mehmood were reinstated into service on the directions of the Chief Minister whereas Anjum Mumtaz and Laiqa Khanam are reinstated into service by the order of this Court. So being not a party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of PAKISTAN or a beneficiary of the order of the Chief Minister, Punjab cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the facts, however submits with vehemence that there was a great distinction between the case of present petitioner namely Aisha Rasheed and the case of other employees who were placed in grade-1 to 15 as the present petitioner Aisha Rasheed was in grade-17 and the Board was authorized to decide the eligibility of its employees regarding the retention of employees of grade-1 to 15 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as 2004 SCMR 1077 and as such this writ petition being misconceived be dismissed.
10. Arguments heard; record perused.
11. So far the facts of the case are concerned these are not disputed, the petitioner was appointed in BS-17 on 2.7.1995 by the order of the then competent authority and that too on the recommendations of the scrutiny Committee who assessed the petitioner's eligibility and determined her suitability in the year 1995. Even the eligibility of the petitioner as well as the suitability is not under dispute even today.
12. The petitioner performed her duties for a considerable long time i,e, for five years without any complaint whatsoever.
13. After hearing both the parties at length and perusal of record it is noticed that the matter of terminated employees of the Punjab Textbook Board were examined at the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as 2004 SCMR 1077 and it is undisputed fact that the Textbook Board reinstated all the employees of grade-1 to 1 5 giving the benefit of the said judgment. In addition to this it is also not denied that Rana Tariq Mehmood (BS-17) and Miss Saman Jamil (BS-17) arc reinstated into service on the directive of the Chief Minister Punjab after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 2004 SCMR 1077.
14. After the reinstatement of Rana Tariq Mehmood and Miss Aman Jamil, the colleague/similarly placed employee namely Anjum Mumtaz (BS-17) approached this Court, her writ petition was allowed but the Board assailed the order of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and vide order dated 21.8.2008 the leave as refused and the order of this Court was confirmed/upheld.
15. To resolve the present controversy it shall be useful to reproduce the concluding Para of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 21.8.2003 in case of Anjum Mumtaz.
"5. After perusal of record and hearing the arguments, we have come to the conclusion that this petition does not deserve, leave to be granted, as question of public importance has not been shown to have been involved in the case in hand. Respondent No, 1, could not be treated with discrimination qua the other employees, who were reinstated having case of similar nature, facts and circumstances. The case of Miss. Saman Jamil and Rana Tariq Mehmood, is the example, who were holding post of Grade-17 and were reinstated, whose case was similar to that of Respondent No,
1. Therefore, no distinctions have been found to the case of the respondent as against those aforementioned persons. As regard the question of eligibility, suffice it to say that Respondent No, 1, when appointed, was found eligible and thereafter her appointment was regularized after about 7 months. Therefore, at the stage, when she had served, the department for about 5 years, her ouster/termination could not be made without any reasonable and justifiable cause.
6. Accordingly, we have found no legal infirmity in the judgment of the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore. This civil petition is dismissed and leave refused."
16.It is to be noted that such like controversy has already been resolved by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases. For the first time, the apex Court resolved the matter once for all in a case reported as Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCMR 1185) wherein it was observed that we may observe that if the Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings; in such a case the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants who may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them to approach the legal forum."
17. In a case reported as Muhammad Abbas v. Government of the Punjab (2005 PLC (CS) 671) this Court has followed the law supra and also adverted to the point of discrimination minutely observing that "a right declared thereunder, cannot be overridden or nullified by an executive order, a rule or a dispensation short of legislative will, hold that no justifiable basis can be made to deny the petitioner a similar treatment which is extended to the colleagues of the petitioner."
18. In another case reported as Government of the Punjab v. Samina Perveen (2009 SCMR 1) the four Hon'ble Judges of the apex Court even repelled the objection of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and extended the benefit to the civil servants upholding the judgment of the High Court in a writ holding that "the matter has already been decided by this Court in the ease of Mst. Naseem Akhtar (supra), and it has been held that the appointment orders of the respondents as PTC Teachers were genuine. It was held by this Court in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of the Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 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 the other civil servants also, who may not be parties to that litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any of her 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 SCMR 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."
19. In another case reported as Muhammad Haleem and another v. General Manager (Operation)
Pakistan Railways Headquarter, Lahore, and others (2009 SCMR 339) the apex Court reinstated those employees of Pakistan Railways and that too with back benefits who were removed from service, approached the Service Tribunal without availing the remedy of filing departmental appeal i,e, a mandatory provision but the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan extended the benefit to the employees of those judgments of the apex Court wherein it was held that for resolving the controversial question shorter procedure of Show Cause Notice was not justified rather a full- fledge regular inquiry should have been conducted before removing the said employees, meaning thereby that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of 2009 SCMR 339 adverted to the same principle that if Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has already decided a principle/question of law then the benefit of that principle/question of law be extended to all other similarly placed persons despite they did not avail the mandatory requirement of filing departmental, appeal and even the apex Court observed in the following manner; "It is also surprising that the Tribunal while hearing the appeals of the petitioners got involved entangled itself in technicalities without taking into consideration the above illegalities. There is no doubt that the petitioners did not assail their orders of dismissal by filing the departmental appeals and instead they submitted legal notices through their advocates which could not be equated or treated as appeal under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 but completely ignored the illegalities and shortcomings committed by the Railway Authorities and on the basis of the failure of the petitioners to comply with the provisions of law penalized them while completely ignoring and overlooking the respondent/Railway Department's illegal, unlawful actions and contraventions of law which resulted in illegal dismissal of the petitioners."
20. Now coming to the facts of the present case it is to be observed that the petitioner who is undisputedly a similarly placed colleague of Rana Tariq Mehmood, Miss Saman Jamil, Laiqa Khanam and Anjum Mumtaz cannot be discriminated on any ground whatsoever particularly when there is a settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1990 SC 295 as well as in unreported judgment in Civil Appeal No, 427/2005 decided on 09.10.2008 titled as Mehr Muhammad Nawaz vs. Managing Director, Small Business Corporation, wherein it is held "needless to emphasis that while dealing with the case 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 of evenhanded justice is not administered, it can have many adverse and negative effects on a society. It can cause discontentment and frustration in the social setup. There can be no denial that social justice is an objective and enshrined in our Constitution."
21.There is another important aspect, which cannot be overlooked and that is the emphasis of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding reinstatement of Rana Tariq Mehmood and Miss Saman Jamil who got the benefit of reinstatement on the strength of directives issued by the Chief Minister Punjab, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as Rana Tariq Mehmood and Miss Saman Jamil got issued directives from the Chief Minister Punjab so it was obligatory on the Punjab Textbook Board Authorities to reinstate Rana Tariq Mehmood and Miss Saman Jamil whereas the present petitioner Miss Aisha Rasheed having no such directive cannot be accommodated/reinstated thus the plea of discrimination having no strength is to be ignored.
22. It is really a shocking one that a citizen who has no connection with political hierarchy is being deprived of the same right which is extended to the similarly placed citizen who could establish some contacts with the Chief Minister Punjab but the Courts of law cannot close their eyes or close their doors for the rectification of wrong or to eliminate the element of discrimination or inconsistency.
23. Of course the present petitioner could not get the directive from the Chief Minister Punjab as Rana Tariq Mehmood and Miss Saman Jamil could manage, but the petitioner cannot be deprived of the same benefit, which is extended to Rana Tariq Mehmood and Miss Saman Jamil being a similarly placed colleague as per dictates of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as well as the law laid down by the apex Court referred above.
24. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed, the termination order of the petitioner is set aside, she is reinstated into service in the light of judgment of reinstatement of Rana Tariq Mehmood, Miss Saman Jamil, Laiqa Khanam and Anjum Mumtaz.
25.Respondent No, 1 is directed to issue reinstatement order to the petitioner within one month from today without fail under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.