' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.--- This Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is directed, against the order dated 24-5-2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers in Writ Petition No.21651/2010.
2. Succinctly facts leading to this appeal are that respondents Nos.1 to 39 (to be called hereinafter as respondents) were Senior Auditors (BPS-16) in the Sales Tax Department before its merger into Inland Revenue Department in 2009 and were re-designated as Inland Revenue Audit Officers. The Establishment Division vide letter No.F-8/36/2010- R/1 dated 20-1-2001 issued a policy of up- gradation of posts and in pursuance thereof different posts in various departments of Federal Government and Provincial Governments were up-graded but the petitioners were declined.
Consequently respondents filed Writ Petition No.21651/2010 seeking up-gradation in accordance with the Government Policy which was allowed vide impugned order dated 24-5-2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers. Being aggrieved petitioners filed instant Intra Court Appeal which was earlier allowed vide judgment dated 10-10-2012 on the short ground that the writ petition had not been formally admitted. Being aggrieved respondents assailed the judgment dated 10-10- 2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Civil Appeal No.78 of 2013. The Hon'ble apex Court vide judgment dated 5-4-2013 accepted the said appeal, set aside the judgment dated 10-10-2012 and remanded the matter to this Court to decide this appeal on merits.
3. At the outset learned counsel for the appellant has raised objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He argues that the controversy regarding up-gradation pertains to the terms and conditions of service therefore respondents facing bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have no case to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is further argued that the hierarchy of posts in Federal Board of Revenue and Controller General of Accounts (CGA)
Accountant General, Punjab is different. Learned counsel has also referred to Notification dated 14- 4-2012 whereby respondents' post has been up-graded from BS-16 to BS 17 with effect from 3-4- 2012 on the recommendation of the Federal Board of Revenue. Further argues that the learned Single Judge in Chambers while passing the impugned order dated 24-5-2011 has misconceived the judgment of this Court dated 15-9-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.10926/2010 which in fact pertained to the up-gradation of the posts of Auditors from BS-14 to BS-16 and thus the dictum laid down in the said judgment dated 15-9-2010 cannot be siphoned on to the facts of the respondents' case. He also contends that as per policy of the Government dated 20-1-2001 two steps up- gradation is not admissible therefore the impugned order dated 24-5-2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers being against law and facts is untenable and liable to set aside.
4. It is resisted by learned counsel for the respondents with the arguments that the posts of Inland Revenue Audit Officers are similar to the Audit Officers in other departments like Auditor General of Pakistan, Accountant General Punjab and Controller General of Accounts which have already been up-graded to BS-18 therefore the respondents possessing equal educational qualification, level of skills and responsibilities cannot be discriminated for up-gradation in BS-18; that the Hon'ble apex Court vide its judgment dated 15-3-2010 in C.Ps. Nos.325 to 397 and 429 of 2010 has categorically held that once there is a policy and some of the departments have already been allowed to upgrade their posts then there should have not been any discrimination towards other departments like the Controller General of Accounts, Islamabad and Accountant General Punjab and such issue should have been resolved amicably without consulting to the Establishment Division; that on the basis of the said judgment of the apex Court, Audit Officers serving in the Controller General of Accounts and Accountant General Punjab have been awarded BS-18; that vide judgment of this Court dated 15-9-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.10926/2010 two steps up- gradation from BS-14 to' BS-16 has been awarded to the Auditors; that the policy of the Government dated 20-1-2001 does not create any bar on two steps up-gradation; that the judgment dated 15-9-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10926/2010 was never questioned by the appellant which still holds the field; that the learned Single Judge in Chambers considering all material facts, policy of the Government dated 20-1-2001 as well as above referred dictums of the apex Court and of this Court has rightly allowed the writ petition in favour of the respondents through the impugned order dated 24-5-2011; that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity therefore appellant has no case to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. As regards appellant's objection on the maintainability of the writ petition suffice to say that the Hon'ble apex Court in its judgment dated 15-3-2010 in C.Ps. Nos.325 to 397 and 429 of 2010 has A categorically held that once there is a policy and some of the departments have already been allowed to up-grade their posts then there should have not been any discrimination towards other departments like the Controller General of Accounts, Islamabad and Accountant General Punjab and such issue should have been resolved amicably without consulting to the Establishment Division. It is settled principle of law that where a question of law and fact has been decided by a Tribunal or by the apex Court, it covers not only the case of the civil servants who litigated but also of other civil servants who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case the dictates and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by Service Tribunal/Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal or any other forum. Reliance is made upon (i) Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1996 SC 1185), (ii) Dr. Zahoor Mehdi v. Chief -Election Commissioner of Pakistan/Returning, Officer for Presidential Election, Islamabad and 8 others (PLD 2009 SC 1), (iii)
Abdul Hameed Anjum and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2010 SC 857). In the light of the above dictums of the Hon'ble apex Court, bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not applicable to the writ petition lodged by the respondents. Objection raised by learned counsel for the appellant therefore is devoid of any force and thus repelled.
7. It may be expedient to reproduce the up-gradation policy of the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad vide Office Memo No.F.8/36/2000-R-1 dated 20th of January, 2001 which reads below:--- "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN CABINET ' SECRETARIAT ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION ' No.F.8/36/2000-R.I Islamabad the 20th of January, 2001 ' OFFICE MEMORANDUM ' Sub: UPGRADATION/REDESIGNATION OF POSTS.
' The undersigned is directed to say that, on a Summary submitted recently to the Chief Executive, he has been pleased to approve the policy for up-gradation/redesignation of posts as indicated in the succeeding paragraphs.
2. Henceforth, the up-gradation of posts shall be considered in the following cases only:
(a) When it is considered necessary to up-grade certain pasts in order to rationalize the administrative structure of a Ministry/Division or a Department to make it more effective or to bring about uniformity of pay scales of similar posts in different organizations.
(b) Where the duties and responsibilities attached to a post have considerably increased.
(c) Where pay scale of a post is considered grossly incommensurate with the qualifications and experience prescribed for appointment to that post.
(d) Up-gradation of a post on personal basis may not be allowed except if any officer, already holding on regular basis a higher grade post, is posted against a post, carrying lower grade, due to exigencies of service.
3. Subject to the observance of the parameters referred to in subparas (a), (d) above, the future proposals for the upgradation/re-designation of posts shall be processed as tinder:---
(i) The cases for upgradation re-designation, of the posts in BS-1 to 19 will be decided by the Finance Division in consultation with the Establishment Division. However, the decision about the proposed up-gradation/redesignation of posts in BPS-1 to 19 will be taken at the level of Secretary, Finance Division and the Secretary, Establishment Division.
(ii) Cases of up-gradation/re-designation of posts in BPS-20 and above will be submitted to the Chief Executive for approval but after seeking the concurrence of the Finance Division and the Establishment Division.
4. It may also be pointed out that the up-gradation of posts does not mean automatic up- gradation of the incumbents of these posts as well in fact, the appointment against the up- graded post is required to be made in the manner prescribed in the Recrutment Rules for that particular post and with the approval of the competent authority therefore.
5. The above instructions may please be noted by the Ministries/ Division for strict compliance thereof.
6. This supersedes Establishment Division's O.M. No.8/130/91-R.1 dated 12th May, 1992 on the subject of up-gradation of posts.
' Sd/- (NASEER-UD-DIN) Joint Secretary (R)
All Ministries/Divisions."
8. Parameter provided in Para 2(a) of the above quoted Office Memo. Makes it crystal clear that up-gradation policy of the Government is to rationalize the administrative structure of a Ministry/Division as well as to bring about uniformity of pay scales of similar posts in different organizations. It is note worthy that the policy dated 20-1-2001 does not create any bar on two steps up-gradation of the post. It is pertinent to mention that vide judgment of this Court dated 15- 9-2010 passed in Writ. Petition No.10926/2010 two steps up-gradation from BS-14 to. BS-16 has been awarded to the Auditors. The said judgment still holds the field.
9. With reference to this case, letter No.19(15)2009-M-III, dated 2-9-2010 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Revenue Division, Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad clearly manifests that the post of Inland Revenue Audit Officer is considered similar to the post of Audit Officer in the Department of Auditor General of Pakistan. Establishment Division/respondent No.4 in the writ petition in parawise comments has also admitted that Accounts. Officers and Audit Officers in Controller General of Accounts and Auditor General of Pakistan have been upgraded to BS-18, therefore, to rule out any discrimination respondents possessing equal qualification, level of skills and responsibilities are also entitled to their up-gradation in BS-18. Learned Single Judge in Chambers considering all relevant facts and provisions of law has rightly allowed the writ petition through the impugned order dated 24-5-2011 in favour of the respondents. We do not see any jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 24-5-2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers.
10. For the above reasons this Intra-Court Appeal having no merit is dismissed.