AHMAD ALI, J. Through this single judgment, this Court shall also dispose of Writ Petition No.277-A/2019 , titled 'Shaheen Akhtar Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary , Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others' , as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. The facts as averred in these two writ petitions are enumerated as under: W.P No.1 10-A/2018 Ayesha Batool, Sadaf Masud, Sumaira Gul, Aliya Tauqeer , petitioners No.1 to 4, were appointed as Director Physical Education (DPE) in BPS-16 on the recommendations of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission and they took over the charge of their posts on 21.10.2004, 29.09.2007, 11.02.2008 and 24.09.2007, respectively , whereas, Abdul Saboor , petitioner No.5 was initially appointed as D.P.E in BPS-16 on contract basis for a period of six months vide Notification dated 11.11.2006, the said contract was extended for a further period of 06 months vide Notification dated 23.05.2007, 25.10.2007, 17.05.2008 and finally petitioner No.5 was appointed upon the recommendation of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission as Director Physical Education BPS-16 vide Notification dated 24.05.2008. The petitioners were duly qualified at the time of their appointment as they were having acquired degree of M.Sc. Health and Physical Education. The petitioners and other Government employees having the same qualification of M.Sc. in their respective discipline were being appointed on the basis of recommendations of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission in BPS-17 but the petitioners were appointed as Director Physical Education in BPS-17.
Initially , the respondent No.4 vide Notification dated 04.03.2009 upgraded the posts of DPEs' and Librarians (possessing Master Degrees) from BPS-16 to BPS-17 with effect from 09.10.2007 and subsequently vide Notification dated 01.01.2010 the petitioners and others DPEs and Librarians (Male/Female) of College Cadre, possessing Master Degree in BPS-16/BPS-17 (personal) were promoted in BPS-17 on regular basis against the upgraded post with immediate effect and thereafter , vide Notification dated 18.08.2010, the Directors Physical Education (BPS-17) were re-designated as Lecturers in Health & Physical Education and absorbed them in the General Cadre Lecturers (Collegiate Branch) Higher Education Department, with immediate effect. The petitioners, as per rules of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Services Pay Revision Rules, 1978, the petitioners were entitled for up- gradation from the date of acquiring Master Degree but the respondents have granted them up-gradation with immediate effect in violation of law on the subject. Earlier , the respondents have granted up-gradation to similarly placed employees by virtue of a judgment of this Court passed in W.P No.4137-P/2016 titled 'Abdul Aziz and others Vs. Chief Secretary to Govt. of KPK and others' but they refused to extend similar benefits to the petitioners.
W.P No.277-A/2019 Petitioner , Shaheen Akhtar , was appointed as Librarian BPS-16 in Higher Education Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through the Public Service Commission, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but the petitioner was being discriminated despite the fact that she is also similarly placed with those Librarians having the qualification of Master Degree in Library and Information Science were allowed BPS-17, in different departments of the Provincial and Federal Government. The respondents have not even granted up-gradation to the petitioner despite various verdicts of superior Courts. Hence, these petitions.
3. The respondents submitted their para wise comments and contested their respective writ petitions on various legal and factual grounds. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and available record perused.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the case of the petitioners in both the petition s, in essence, is that they were appointed as Director Physical Education and Librarians in BPS-16 on the recommendations of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission and at the time of their appointment they were having Master Degree in their respective discipline and they have been performing their duties in different provincial Government institution/colleges since their appointmen t, however , the respondents did not consider the cases of the petitioners for up-gradation in BPS-17 from the date of acquiring Master Degree like other similarly placed employees in view of the judgments of the august Apex Court and this Court passed in various appeals and writ petitions.
5. This Court has already set the controversy at rest involved in the present writ petitions in various judgments passed in W.P. No.4137-P/2016 decided on 05.09.2017, W.P No.3948-P/2016 decided on 07.12.2017 and recent judgment passed in W.P No.4225-P/2018 decided on 06.11.2018. In all the said judgments, this Court while following the dictum of the august Apex Court in Civil Appeals No.1 114 to 1116 of 2006 titled "Bibi Mussarat, Librarian etc Vs. Secretary Education Peshawar and two others" decided on 22.02.2010 has allowed the abovementioned writ petitions and the respondents were directed to grant up-gradation from BPS-16 to BPS-17 to the writ petitioners from the dates of their respective appointments as they were having the qualification of M.S.c. in their respective discipline. There is no objection on the eligibility of the petitioners, there is no objection on their performance as they are shouldering the responsibilities of their respective posts since the date of their appointments, besides, it was the responsibility of the respondents to have followed the formalities required prior to processing the appointments and the employees cannot be blamed for any lapse s on the part of the appointing authority . In this respect, reliance can be placed on the cases of "Faud Asadullah Khan Vs. Federation of Pakistan" (2009 SCMR 412), "Abdul Salim Vs. Government of N.-W .F.P. through Secretary Department of Education Secondary , N.-W .F.P., Peshawar and others" (2008 SCMR 871), "Secretary to Government of N.- W.F.P. Zakat/Social W elfare Department, Peshawar and another Vs. Sadullah Khan" ( 1996 SCMR 413 )".
6. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Government of Punjab, through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others Vs. Sameena Parveen and others" ( 2009 SCMR 1 )", held as under:- "If a Tribunal or the Supreme 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 other civil servants also, who may not be parties to that litigation, instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other forum---All citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law as per Art. 25 of the Constitution".
Thus, where similar cases have already been allowed by this Court, we are not inclined to form any other view .
7. Where this Court has already expressed its view and allowed cases of similarly placed employees in view of the above mentioned decision of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, we have no other choice but to also allow these writ petitions with the direction to the respondents to grant upgradation to the petitioners in both the writ petitions from BPS-16 to BPS-17 from the dates of their appointments.
8. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions are admitted and allowed in the above terms.