' MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN, (CHAIRMAN).--- Service Appeals Nos.153 of 2010 and 177 of 2010 are proposed to be disposed of through this single judgment as common question of law and facts is involved.
2. The relevant facts in small compass are that in the year 1990, the Government of Balochistan had launched Balochistan Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (hereinafter referred to as BRWSSP) funded by World Bank and the appellants were appointed as Planning and Community Development Officers in the year 1995. Their services were regularized on 6-6-2006 by the competent authority. It is case of the appellants that the posts of Planning and Community Development Officers were shown as BPS-17 in the advertisement published in daily Jang Quetta dated 4-8-1995 but they were appointed in BPS-16 instead of BPS-17. As per appellants, they made representations to respondent No,1 for up-gradation/redesignation the posts of Planning Officer and Community Development Officers as Assistant Director (Planning) Research Officer BPS-17 and Assistant Director (Community Development) Research Officer BPS-17 but to no avail. Lastly while finding no other way out, they approached this Tribunal.
3. On the other hand, the respondents contested the appeal on legal and factual grounds by filing their written replies stating therein that the posts of Planning Officer and Community Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as CDOs) BPS-17 have inadvertently been advertised instead of BPS- 16 in newspaper daily Jang Quetta. It has also been stated therein that the appellants accepted the offer letters clause 2 of which clearly reveals that the posts of Planning Officers are BPS-16 and no objection at the time of acceptance was raised.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their contentions in the light of documents available on record. The learned Additional Advocate-General Balochistan submitted that appellants were regularized as Planning Officer and CDO in B-16 w,e,f, 6-6-2006 which they accepted at their own free-will without any protest whatsoever. He further argued that the question of waiver and estoppeal is also attracted in such circumstances. On the other hand the learned counsel for appellants Mr.Waseem Jadoon Advocate has argued that after completion of the project, the services of appellants were firstly terminated on 13-1-2004 which orders were later cancelled on 15-1-2004 and their services were regularized as Planning Officers and CDOs in B-16. He also submitted that the terms and conditions of service, offered to appellants, were accepted by them under compelling circumstances, appellants being jobless and in fear of being shown the door, had no option but to accept and continue with the appointment. Appellants were not in a position to negotiate or bargain on the terms and conditions of service.
5. We are of considered view that the contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate General is devoid of force as admittedly there is no equilibrium of bargaining strength between the appellants and respondents. It is difficult to countenance the approach of respondents that the appellants should be continued to be governed on disgraceful terms and conditions for indefinite period. In view of section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, the respondent department was required to act reasonably, fairly and justly. An employee being jobless and in fear of being shown the door, had no option but to accept and continue with the appointment on whatever conditions it was offered by the department. In Habibullah v. Government of the Punjab and 5 others PLD 1980 Lah. 37, it was held that the employer being placed in a position of authority and strength could always coerce employees to waive their legal protection and accept contractual terms at pains of his job. The Courts always relieve the weaker parties from unconstitutional contractual obligations, unjust, unfair, oppressive and unconscionable rules or conditions when the citizen is really unable to meet on equal terms with the state. It is to find whether the citizen when entered into contracts or service was in distress need or compelling circumstances to enter into contract on dotted lines or whether the citizen was in a position of either to "take it or leave it".
6. It is admitted feature of the case that the applications for recruitment for the posts of Planning Officer (BPS-17) were invited through an advertisement. However, after fulfillment of the required procedure the appellants were appointed as Planning Officer in (BPS-16) instead of BPS-17. A number of documents available on record would also show and suggest that in the Planning and Development Department Government of Balochistan as well as in the sister provinces the posts of Planning Officers and Community Development Officers (CDOs) were upgraded from BPS-16 to BPS-17.
7. In such, circumstances, as to whether the appellants could be discriminated from the Planning Officers and CDOs of other department viz PND Department of Balochistan as well as the - Provinces of Sindh and Punjab. From the record there does not seem to be any reason advanced by the respondents to justify the refusal to grant up-gradation to the appellants. If Planning Officers and CDOs of other departments have been upgraded, why the appellants should be deprived of this benefit.
8. While dealing with the cases in hand, where the appellants alleged discrimination, we cannot overlook the implications thereof. Equal treatment of all similarly situated is the basic principle on which justice rests under the law. If even-handed justice is not administered it can have many adverse and negative effects on the society. It can cause discontentment and frustration in the social set up. There can be no denial that social justice is an objective, embodied and enshrined in our Constitution. The Preamble and Article 2-An i,e, the Objectives Resolution, ordain that principles of equality and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. Article 4 (to be dealt with in accordance with law), Article 25 (Equality before the law and equal protection of law), Article 26 (No discrimination in respect of access to D public places), Article 27 (Safeguards against discrimination in services) read with Principles of policy i,e, Article 37 (Promotion of social justice and eradication of social evils) all go to show, the great stress laid and envisaged by the Constitution makers. Non-observance of such provisions and principles may amount to negation of Constitutional mandates, dictates of justice and rule of good governance, which should be avoided as far possible.
9. For the discussion made herein above the appeals are allowed. The respondents are directed to upgrade and redesign ate the posts of Planning Officers and Community Development Officers from BPS-16 to BPS-17 from the date of their appointments without back benefit.
10. With the observation made hereinabove the appeals stood disposed of with no order as to costs..