JUDGMENT SHEIKH HAKIM ALI, J.
Good performance requires appreciation, once appreciated, it should not be deprecated.
Once increments are sanctioned and promised, many dreams and hopes are created.
In such a case, it should not be retreated.
The above is the complaint and case of the petitioner in nutshell through this petition.
2. Facts forming the background for filing of this 'Civil petition are that petitioner who had joined Lahore Development Authority (LDA) as Accounts Clerk with the qualification of B.A. In the year 1987.
Due to incentives, he had improved his academic qualification by passing LL.B, and i.e M.As., so he was awarded two increments for that higher qualification. As the performance of petitioner was also found satisfactory and excellent, so in the year 1996, two more advance increments with effect from-10.11.1996 were also sanctioned in his favour, along with some other employees, by the then Vice-Chairman of LDA. Although this order, according to petitioner, was implemented in the relevant record but the payment of the aforesaid two increments was withheld, with no reason for it, upon which petitioner commenced his active efforts for the disbursement of that two advance increments granted to him through the above said order. He had filed a representation before the competent authority which was, when not being disposed of, so the petitioner was constrained to i.e a Writ Petition No. 20293 of 2001 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, from where on 15.11.2001, the respondents were directed to decide the petitioner's representation within two months. As payment of the increments was declined, So the petitioner again resorted to the present remedy of Writ Petition after having made many efforts in the Department. Present Writ Petition No. 10782 of 2006 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge' in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore, on 26.3.2007, which order was appealed against through ICA No. 135 of 2007 by the petitioner but without any success as it was also dismissed on 25.9.2007. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent. Petitioner has appeared in person to argue his case, while on behalf of respondents learned counsel has argued the case at length.
4. As per petitioner, Vice-Chairman of LDA had sanctioned two increments in favour of petitioner as welt as to others but the amount of increments to his extent was not released by the Department, without any cogent reason. Petitioner has also submitted that he was discriminated as against the other employees of LDA, who were granted advance increments with like situation and were paid but the - petitioner was deprived of it without his fault, rhyme and reason. The Uniform policy which was circulated on 13.2.2002 was not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the case of the petitioner was of the year 1996 while this policy had come into existence in the year 2002 which should have been considered prospective in its operation and application.
5. The leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by stating that learned Judges of the Lahore High Court Lahore have adverted to the plea and claim of the petitioner but have not accepted, his claim, as it had become a-policy matter of the LDA. However, the learned counsel has not been able to controvert, the assertion of the petitioner that there were cases of other employees who were by the then Vice-Chairman of LDA was, not released to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that two advance increments were granted already to the petitioner in the year 1991 on the basis of higher qualifications and that the present writ petition was filed after a considerable delay, it was rightly dismissed on the basis of laches.
6. After considering the arguments, and from the perusal of the record, it has transpired that the sanction of two advance increments in favour of petitioner, by the then Vice-Chancellor of LDA in the year 1996 was an admitted fact which could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. We have also observed that in the memo, of ICA filed-by petitioner, in Ground 'D' of para. 3, petitioner had not only entered the dates but the names of the employees who were granted increments by the then Vice-Chairman of LDA which is reproduced as below:- c" "D. That on 10.11.1996 Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad DCS Computer Section was awarded four advance increments, on 6.11.1996 Mr. Safdar Mansoor DEO Computer Section awarded one advance increment on 6.11.1996 Mr. Ghulam Anwar DEO DG. Cell LDA was awarded two advance increment, on 10.11.1996 Mr. Rashid Khan SS LDA was awarded two advance increments by Vice-Chairman LDA all the above named employees are receiving the benefit of advance increments but the appellant has been illegally deprived."
7. In other words, the petitioner has proved his case of discrimination through substantial instances. This assertion of grant of advance increments to the above-noted persons have not been confuted by the respondents. Therefore, it is proved on the record that the petitioner has been treated discriminately qua the other employees with cases of similar nature. There is no reasonable explanation adduced by the respondents for refusal of the release of two advance increments after it was . Sanctioned by the competent authority in case of the petitioner. The plea of Uniform policy cannot be"accepted in the case of the petitioner, as the two advance increments were sanctioned in favour of petitioner in the year 1996, with effect from 10.11.1996, while the trumpeted Uniform policy had come into existence in the year 2002, after more then 6 years of the order of sanction which could not be applied with retrospective effect, so as to deprive the lone case of petitioner.
8. As regards the objection of laches, we cannot endorse this view because according to the petitioner, he had, been continuing to make representations and filing applications to LDA to consider his case individually and not through an omni-bus order, passed for the other employees of LDA. Moreover, this rule of laches is not a rule of universal application, It has to be applied to the facts and circumstances of its own case. The filing of representations, writ petition. After writ petition, submission of application after application, are the instances of continuing .Efforts being made by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be declined the relief on the basis of this rule.
9. Accordingly, we convert this civil petition into appeal and accept it, by setting aside the impugned judgment passed in ICA No. 135/2007 (Muhammad Anwar Siddiqui vs. Lahore Development Authority and others) of Lahore High Court, Lahore with direction to respondents to pay the two sanctioned advance increments to the petitioner within a period of two months. ,Ne order as to costs.