MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J.- Petitioner has filed the instant constitutional petition, under Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, with the following prayer; "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition, the respondents be directed to award up-gradation to the petitioner in BPS-14 w.e.f 20.05.2014 as awarded to the other employees, with all back benefits and consequential reliefs, with cost. Any other relief which this Honourable Court deem just and appropriate, in the given circumstances of the instant case, may also graciously be awarded.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as per the contents of the instant petition are that the present petitioner is an employee of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Council Board and presently working as license inspector in BPS-11 in the Tehsil Municipal Administration, Haripur. It is further pleaded that in the year 2014 the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Finance Department has issued a notification dated 20.05.2014 whereby different posts of ministerial staff comprising of Superintendent, Assistant, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk were upgraded, which notification was also adopted by the respondent board in verbatim vide notification dated 15.08.2014 and accordingly the incumbent of the said posts were also upgraded vide a formal office order dated 26.10.2015 whereby the employees of the Tehsil Municipal Administration Haripur including the present petitioner were upgraded from BPS-9 to BPS-11, however, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent was required to upgrade him to BPS-14 instead to BPS-11, therefore, he has approached to this Court for the necessary direction to upgrade the scale of the petitioner from BPS-9 to BPS-14.
3. When this case was taken up for hearing on 01.11.2023 respondents were put on notice and they were directed to submit their para-wise comments which they have accordingly submitted.
4. Arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties were heard in considerable detail and the record perused with their able assistance.
5. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since as per notification of the Finance Department Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa dated 20.05.2014 which was also adopted by the respondent No.3 vide notification dated 15.08.2014 whereby the post of senior clerk has been upgraded from BPS-9 to BPS-14 therefore, respondents are required to upgrade him to BPS-14, however, when learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted that as to from where he has withdrawn this wisdom that petitioner would be granted the upgraded scale of a senior clerk as when he is performing his duty as a license inspector, though he was unable to reply any satisfactory answer but took the plea that respondent may treat the post of license inspector equal to the senior clerk.
6. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner was also confronted that there is no reference of upgradation of the post of license inspector as as stated herein above that only posts of Superintendent, Assistant, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk have been upgraded, whereas, the post of license inspector is nowhere mentioned in the subject notification and even then the post of petitioner has been upgraded from BPS-9 to BPS-11, for this too he could not satisfactory explained and remained stick to his stance that respondents should treat the designation of license inspector as senior clerk, however, we failed to understand that all the posts whether senior clerk, water rate inspector or site inspector or license inspector have their different job description and it is entirely the domain of the respondents to upgrade the post of a particular set of employee and to leave the other unchanged.
7. It is also relevant to mention here that the learned counsel for the petitioner made much emphasis that petitioner has been discriminated, however, we failed to understand the phenomenon of discrimination as interpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as discrimination could be claimed only if an employee of the same class is treated differently, we asked him that as to whether any license inspector has been granted BPS-14 his reply was in negative, when such being the position then it is within the authority of the respondents to award upgradation to a particular class of employee and denied the same to the other on the basis of principle of intelligible differentia. In the case of Jahangir Sarwar and others Versus Lahore High Court and another reported as 2011 SCMR 363 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is well settled by now that "equality clause does not prohibit different laws for those differently circumstanced provided a rational standard is laid down to guide the discretion of the relevant Authority to choose the appropriate law. A State may classify persons and objects for the purpose of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons or objects within a class. In fact almost all legislation involves some kind of classification whereby some people acquire rights or suffer disabilities which others do not. Expression "equal protection of laws" does not place embargo on power of State" to classify either in adoption of police laws, or tax laws, or eminent domain laws" rather gives to State exercise of wide scope of discretion, of course, nullifying "what is without any reasonable basis". The State has the power of what is known as "classification" on the basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject dealt with. Classification may be due to geographical situation or it may be based on territorial, economic, communal and other similar considerations. The Constitution itself contemplates passing of different laws for different provinces by their respective legislatures. The doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems. It, therefore, should have the power to make a reasonable classification of persons and things, to whom different treatment may be accorded, provided there is legitimate basis for such difference the State can make laws to attain special objects, and the administrative authorities may make classification, in pursuance of such laws. In the case of Ghulam Mustafa Insari and 48 others Versus Government of The Punjab and others reported as PLD 2004 Supreme Court (Pak.) 1903, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the equality is amongst-equals and un equals cannot be treated as equals. Reliance could also be made on the case titled LA Sharwani and others Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others reported as 1991 SCMR 1041. We understand that the respondents have upgraded the posts of clerical/ ministerial staff only which comprising of Superintendent, Assistant, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk and as the petitioner does not belong to the said category of employee, therefore, he could not claim the upgradation of his post from BPS- 9 to BPS-14.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also made reference to the order of this Court dated 15.02.2023 passed in COC No.01-A/2020 whereby the respondents were directed to adhere to the order of the learned Labour Court, granting the petitioner BPS-14. However, subsequently the petitioner filed another COC No.03-A/2021, where the said anomaly has been explained and it has been observed that the plea of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he may be promoted to BPS-9 and he has never prayed before the Labour Court for his promotion/upgradation to BPS-14, therefore, any directions in the order of this Court dated 15.03.2021 for grant of BPS-14 may be a clerical mistake or it may be the result of improper assistance as by than was not at all the case or petitioner and he was contesting his case for the grant of promotion to BPS-9 and not for BPS-14, therefore, such ground of the petitioner too is misconceived.
9. For the afore-stated reasons, this writ petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed.