1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 12- 7-1981, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the benefit of Circular No. F. D. P B.
2. 16-12/72, dated 15th January, 1981 issued by the 'Punjab Government allowing four advance increments to Stenographers etc. In .The Secretariat as well as Field Offices was held applicable to a group of Private Secretaries employed in the Lahore High Court.
3. In the High Court; according to the long-standing practice, a Judgment Writer/Personal Assistant was attached to every learned Judge for taking down judgments dictated to them. The incumbents of these posts were in N. P. S. 14 (Rs. 520-30-730/35-1010/40-1210). By an order dated 15-1-1975, the Governor of the Punjab was pleased to upgrade the post of Judgment Writer/Personal Assistant attached to the Judges of the Lahore High Court to N. P. S. 16 (Rs. 625-a0- 825/50-1350/60-1625) after the prescription of higher qualifications, leaving the designation of the upgraded post to be decided by the Finance Department. The Finance Department approved the designation of "Private Secretary" for the upgraded post of Personal Assistant/Judgment Writer in the Lahore High Court, while the High Court decided, on 3-41975, that for appointment to the said post, the candidate must either be a graduate or possess at least five years' experience as a Judgment Writer in the High Court. As for the duties to be performed by him, these were to include those of a Judgment Writer. The Governor of the Punjab, accepting the designation, approved by the Finance Department, was pleased to order redesignation of the post of the Personal Assistant/Judgment Writer (N. P. S. 16) to that of Private Secretary of the Judges of the Lahore High Court, by his letter dated 4th March, 1979. All the respondents, who were previously called Judgment Writers, were redesignated as "Private Secretaries".
4. Consequently, on issuance of the circular of the Punjab Government dated 15th January, 1981, on the subject of grant of four advance increments to Stenographers "viz. Steno-typists, Junior Scale Stenographers Grade-1, Junior Scale Stenographers Grade-If, Stenographers, Senior Scale Steno-- graphers and Personal Assistants in the Secretariat as well as Field Offices", the respondents, 21 in number, submitted a representation to the Government through the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court for the grant of four advance increments in terms of the circular of 15th January, 1981 on the grounds that their duties were assimilable to those of Stenographers and that the denial of the benefit of four advance increments to them has resulted in the ridiculous position that a Private Secretary attached to a High Court Judge (whose initial pay starts from Rs. 625 P. M.1 would be drawing less than a Judgment Writer/Personal Assistant, who will, as a result of the conferment of four increments, start from Rs. 640 P. M. This representation was recommended by the High Court and also supported by the Administrative Department (S. G.
5. A. & T. D). However, by its letter dated 9-3-1981, the Finance Department regretted its inability to agree with the proposal of the Administrative Department and rejected the representation, which decision, in due course, was communicated to the respondents.
6. Aggrieved by the above decision, the respondents filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was accepted by. It, vide its order dated 12-7-1981 on the view that the Private Secretary m the High Court was nothing but a Judgment Writer/Personal Assistant glorified by the fact of being in N. P. S. 16. Otherwise in the nature of his duties, as well as in the quantum of such duties he is no different from the Judgment Writer, and could not, therefore, be equated with a Private Secretary, in the Punjab Government, who looked after the multitude of official and semi- official duties, some of which are of a highly confidential nature which necessarily forms part of the functions of Secretaries, Commissioners, etc. Of which taking down dictation is the least important, even through this cannot be refused, if required to be performed. The appeal was accepted and it was held that the Private Secretaries of the Judges of the Lahore High Court are entitled to the concession of four advance increments allowed in the Punjab Govern--ment's letter dated 15-1- 1981. Hence this appeal by the Province of the Punjab through the Secretary, Finance, Mr. M. M. Saeed Baig, in support of this appeal, has contended that the benefit of four advance increments was conferred on Stenographers holding designated posts. By the express inclusion of certain officials in the circular there was the implied but necessary exclusion of others. It is further con--tended that a grant made expressly to certain designated officials could not, by anology, be extended to another clause of officials nor could the Govern--ment be forced to grant the concession to this category of officials on notions of justice and equity. In this view of the matter, reference to the duties performed by the Private Secretaries in the High Court being assimilable to those of Stenographers was irrelevant.
7. Mr. Mumtaz Hussain, learned counsel for the Respondents Nos. 1 to I1 and 13 to 20 submitted that if the history of the manner, in which the respondents came to be designated as Private Secretaries, was taken into consideration, it would be been that a change had been brought about only in the nomenclature of the erstwhile Personal Assistants/Judgment ,Writers and there had not been any alteration in their duties and functions which continued to be that of Stenographers. Consequently, they could avail of the benefit envisaged in the circular of 15th January, 1981, whereby, four advance increments were allowed "to the existing incumbents of all the posts of Stenographers, viz. Steno- typists. Junior Scale Stenographers Grade-I, Junior Scale Stenographers and Grade-11 and Personal Assistants in the Secretariat as well as Field Offices". Thus, existing incumbents of all the posts of Stenographers are eligible to the benefit conferred therein. The officials specifically mentioned after the word "Stenographers" do not exhaust the categories of Stenographers, who are to be granted the benefit. But only illustrative of the said word. Hence if an official comes within the ambit of the expression "Stenographers" he would also be entitled to the benefit of four advance increments, although the post held by him may not have been enumerated amongst the officials after the said word. The meaning of the word "Stenographer" is not to be restricted by the words which follow despite the use of the term "viz".
8. He further submitted that if a restricted meaning of the word "Stenogra--phers" is given it will lead to an anomalous situation in that after the grant of four advance increments in pay to Judgment Writers-cum-Personal Assistants in N. P. S. 14 an incumbent of that post will draw his initial pay at Rs..640 p. m., whereas a Private Secretary in N. P. S. 16 will draw his initial pay at Rs. 623 p. m. Thus, the redesignation of their posts and their upgradation to N. P. S. 16 will result in a recurring loss of Rs.
9. 15 p. m. It was further submitted that the law now is that the interpretation of departmental instructions etc. Which are favourable to the employees is to be preferred rather than otherwise.
10. Reliance is placed on Postmaster-General, Eastern Circle, Dacca and another v. Muhammad Hashim (PLD1978SC61He also points out that in cases of this kind it is the duty performed by the incumbent, which is to be seen rather than the formal designation which he hears. Attention, in this regard, is invited to West Pakistan Government through Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary and Commissioner, Peshawar Division v. S. Abdul Khaliq, Accountant, Hazara Treasury (PLD1970SC247and Hafiz Mushtaq Ahmad v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1981 SC 172).
11. Ch. Hameeduddin, Advocate, appearing for Respondents Nos. 12 & 21 submitted that the duties of Judgment Writers/Personal Assistants was mainly that of taking down dictation and transcription of the notes. According to the terms and conditions laid down by the High Court, the duties of the Private Secretaries shall, inter alia, include also these of a Judgment Writer. These rules further show that the Private Secretaries are qualified Judgment Writers of the Lahore High Court with the additional factor of being either Graduates or to possessing five years' experience as Judgment Writers. Hence there is no reason that the Circular of the Punjab Government dated 15-1-1981 should not be so interpreted as to exclude the answering respondents from the benefit granted to the Judgment Writers/Personal Assistants, simply because they have been upgraded. It is pointed out that the true purpose for granting four advance increments to Stenographers was to compensate this clays of officials for the laborious type of work done' by them (Stenographers) and to make it more attractive. This consideration applied equally to the case of the answering respondents. The Punjab Service Tribunal, which is the appellate authority in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of Civil Servants in relation to the orders passed by the' departmental authorities has been conferred the powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure.
12. Under section 107, C. P. C. An Appellate Court possesses the same powers and performs the same duties as are conferred and imposed on the Court of original jurisdiction. Thus; in view of section 107, C. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Constitution 1574, whatever powers are enjoyed by the Departmental Authority are ipso facto vested in the Tribunal. Hence it can reverse or vary any order passed by a Departmental Authority and can itself determine a case finally or make any order which ought to have beenor passed by that authority, including the substitution of an erroneous or improper order. As the powers of the Service Tribunal are comeextensive with the powers vested in the departmental authority, the order of the departmental authority could be set aside, varied, substituted by the Service Tribunal with a view to correcting any arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, reasonable or improper exercise of power by the departmental authority and, for avoiding injustice, oppression or hardship to the aggrieved civil servant. Attention is invited to the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M. Yasmin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1). Hence the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Circular dated 15-1-1981 applies also to the case of respondents and in this behalf substituted its opinion for that of the departmental authority, cannot be regarded as illegal or even improper.
13. He also urged that the appeal by the Government did not raise any question of law of general public importance as it deal only with the case of a small group of persons, namely, Private Secretaries in the High Court and decides the question whether the said Circular could be availed of by them or not. No question of law of general public importance being involved, the appeal was, therefore, incompetent under Article 212 of the .Constitution.
14. We have given our earnest consideration to the pleas raised by the two sides. Taking the last submiskion of Ch. Hamiduddin first we may observe that Article 212(3) of the Constitution of 1973 lays down that an appeal against the order of a Service Tribunal is competent only if the Supreme Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law of general public importance.
15. The question, therefore, is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the respondents too are covered by the terms of the Circular issued by the Punjab Government on 15-1-1981 does, indeed, raise a substantial question of law of general public importance. The Tribunal has held that "the Private Secretary available to the High Court Judge is nothing but a glorified Judgment Writer-cum- Personal Assistant, glorified by the fact of being in N. P. S. 16. Otherwise, in the nature of his duties, as well as in the quantum of such duties he is no different from the Judgment Writer". It has further observed that "in fact, these Private Secretaries are charactrised by their capability and skill as Stenographers and have no time from the load of daily stenographic work to be asked to do anything else". Thus, on a consideration of the actual duties being performed by the Private Secretaries in the High Court, a finding has been recorded that a Private Secretary attached to a Judge of the Lahore High Court is nothing more than glorified Judgment Writer-cum-Personal Assistant. This is a finding of fact and such a finding could have been recorded by it as an appellate authority in preference to that of the departmental authority in the relevant regard, as held by this Court in M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Wherein, it has been observed that "it was the duty of the Service Tribunal to examine on merits all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by the appellant to challenge the order of his dismissal". It was also observed that "the Tribunal has wide powers under section 5 of the Act, as it may on appeal confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against. Under subsection (2) of the same section, the Tribunal for the purpose of deciding any appeal is to be deemed to be a Civil Court, and to have all the powers as are vested in such Court under the C. P. C. 1903". Thus, the Service Tribunal being an appellate authority, before which, on the preferment of an appeal against an order of a departmental authority, the whole matter gets re-opened becomes empowered to confirm, set aside, vary, modify or substitute its opinion for that of the departmental authority". The finding that a Private Secretary of a High Court is, in fact, nothing but a Stenographer, is a final disposition of this aspect of the matter. Its further finding that they can, therefore, also avail of the benefit of the Circular in question, is a decision confined to this single set of employees based on the finding that they are, indeed, Stenographers, despite their glorified appellation. The case, therefore, does not raise an question of law of public importance, but decides a very limited question, namely, whether certain persons claiming to fall within the ambit of the Circular in question do, indeed, come within its scope and does not decide any question of general public importance. Hence the appeal of the Punjab Government is not competent on this short ground.
(1) PLD 1980SC22 Even otherwise, the main contention raised by Mr. M. M. Saeed Baigthat as the benefit by the Circular in question was conferred only on certain designated Stenographers viz. Stenographers.
16. Junior Scale Stenographers Grade-I, Junior Scale Stenographers Grade II Senior Scale Stenographers and Personal Assistants and, therefore, do other category of officials could be included therein,. Is also not correct. The main reason given in support of this argument is that the Circular has exhaustively enumerated the category of officials to whom the benefit has been conferred which is evident by the use of the term "viz." immediately before the enumeration of the officials designated after the term "Stenographers". It is these officials alone, who can be the beneficiaries of the concession given by the Circular and no other category of officials was intended to be benefited by it.
17. We do not consider that this argument is correct. There is no universal rule that if the term "viz" precedes the enumeration of persons or things with) a view to explaining what the scope of the subject matter of the grant is then all other persons or things except those which have been enumerated are necessarily excluded. Mr. Mumtaz Hussain cited before us the case of Dean v Gibson (6). In that case the Testatrix a markswoman madeill Shortly before her death, in which the only bequest. Was a gift of her "personal property, consisting of money and clothes". She was possessed at her death, of property, besides cash in hand and clothes, consisting of money out on mortgage, money secured . On a promissory note, and a reversionary interest in a sum of cash. It was held that the words, "consisting of money and clothes" did not cut down the generality of the gift of "personal property" being only an imperfect enumeration of the particulars of which the personal estate consisted ; and that the whole of her personal estate passed by her will. This precedent is not entirely apposite to the case in band as the words "consisting of money and clothes" was interpreted. However, our own careful perusal of the judgment of this case reveals that herein an earlier case of Baldas v. Gridan (1) was noted reference to which is more relevant. In this case, testator bequeathed "the remainder of his estate, viz. His Bank Stock, India Stock and South Sea Annuities", and Lord King held that not those particular funds only, but the whole residuary estate, passed; the specification not being added in a restrictive sense, but as an enumeration of the chief particulars of which the estate consisted. Thus, it will be a question to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether C the specification added after the word "viz." to explain the subject matter of the grant has been added in a restricted sense or merely as an enumeration of the chief particulars of persons or things desired to be covered by it..
(1) 3 L R (Emity) 713 in this case, the appellate authority, namely, the Service Tribunal has found as a fact that the respondents are in effect only "Stenographers" and as all Stenographers in the Secretariat or in other Field offices, are eligible to the benefit of four advance increments, this benefit is, therefore, available to the Private Secretaries of the High Court. The finding, not being against any law or principle, is not; therefore, liable to interference. On this view of the matter the other contentions raised by Mr. M. M. Saeed Baig that the grant made applicable expressly to a particular category cannot be extended by analogy to another category ; that reference to the duties performed is irrelevant when the categories of officials made the beneficiary of the grant have been designated and that the Government cannot be forced to grant the concession on notions of justice and equity are of no avail in view of our finding that the Tribunal could hold that the Circular in question covered the case of Private -Secretaries of the Lahore High Court on account of their conclusion that they are in effect Stenographers only and the said Circular intended to benefit incumbents of "all" the posts of Steno--graphers in the Secretariat or in the Field Offices. Merely because the respondents are called Private Secretaries is of no conse--quence if, indeed, they are only Stenographers. We may . Add that even, according to the enumeration made in the Circular, Personal Assistants are entitled to the benefit conferred by it. This is, so because they mainly do the work of Stenographers, although called Personal Assistants. This exactly has also been found to be the case. Of the "Private Secretaries" of the High Court. '
18. The overall conclusion is that there is no force in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed, but the parties will bear their own .Costs.
19. M. S. H. Qureshi J. The appeal involves . The interpretation of the Provincial Government's circular letter, dated 15-1-1981, whereby four advance increments in their present pay scales with effect from the date of the letter were allowed to "the existing incumbents of all the posts of Stenographers viz. Steno-typists, Junior Scale Stenographers Grade-1, .Junior Scale Stenogra-- phers Grade-II, Stenographers, Senior Scale Stenographers and Personal Assistants in the Secretariat as well as Field Offices". A question arose before the Punjab Service Tribunal whether the benefit of the circular letter was avail--able by reference to the nature of duties actually performed or to the posts specified therein. The official interpretation was that the benefit was restricted to the designated posts. But the Tribunal decided that it was by reference to the nature of duties and finding that the respondents, that is the Private Secretaries in the High Court, were basically stenographers, held them entitled to the benefit.
(1) 8 Vis. Ala. La. 895
2. The difficulty has been created by the use of the words "incumbents of all the posts of stenographers" which is capable of giving an impression that the intention was to confer the benefit on all those engaged in performing duties of the nature of a stenographer. However, in order to dispel such impression, the posts for which the benefit was actually meant were specified.
20. Had the real intention been to give the benefit by reference to the nature of the duties, then it was not necessary to have specified the posts. There must be in the administrative set up a number of other posts involving duties partly or wholly of the nature of a stenographer such -as Reporters and E Private Secretaries who have not been included and this non-inclusion is apparently deliberate.
21. For, any attempt to extend the benefit by reference the nature of duties would make the notification open to wide controversy and presumably in order to shut out such controversy, the Government took care to spell out the actual posts to which the benefit would be available. It is the golden rule of interpretation that the words of a statute must in the first instance be given their ordinary natural meaning unless the same leads to inconsistency or absurdity. It has been commented in . Maxwell on Inter--pretation of Statutes, that "The words cannot be construed, contrary to their meaning, as embracing or excluding cases merely because no good reason appears why they should be excluded or embraced. However unjust, arbitrary or inconvenient the meaning conveyed may be, it must receive its full effect. Then once the meaning is plain, it is not the province of a Court to scan its wisdom or its policy. Its duty is not to make the law reasonable, but to expound it as it stands, according to the real sense of the words."
22. It has been further commented in the same book that: "it is but a corollary to the general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be added to or to be taken from a statute, unless there are similar adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature intended something which it omitted to express. It is strong thing to read into an Act of Parliament words which are not there, and, in the absence of clear necessity, it is a wrong thing to do." , The express mention of the specific posts after the word "viz" must, therefor, by necessary implication mean the exclusion of all other posts. That being so, it is not for the Courts to supply the cassus omissus. I am, therefore, of the view that the benefit of the notification was meant for the F specified posts and is not to be extended by reference to the nature of duties. 1 may mention here that I had the benefit of going through the judgment proposed to be delivered by Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, J., on behalf of the Bench, , . But with respect I must say that I feel unable to agree with the view taken .By him on this point.
3. However I am not satisfied that the impugned decision of the Tribunal raises "a substantial question of law of public importance". The benefit of the Tribunal's decision is available only to the twenty-one respondents, the nature of whose duty has peculiarity of its own. The appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground and I order accordingly: