Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J. The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 7.7.2020, passed in Writ Petition No. 545 of 2014.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court, alleging therein, that they are the permanent employees of the Public Health Engineering Division Muzaffarabad. It was further alleged that after the devastating earthquake, 2005, for rehabilitation and reconstruction of the affected areas, the Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) was established through an Act of the Assembly and likewise in Azad Jammu & Kashmir the SERRA was also established for execution/implementation of the projects of reconstruction and rehabilitation. It was averred that the Government approved the Physical Planning & Housing Department as employer for execution of the reconstruction project and also approved the project allowance for the employees, who were assigned the additional charge of the posts of the project costing upto Rs. 100 million. The petitioners/respondents, herein, claimed that they remained serving in different projects of reconstruction and rehabilitation, hence, they are entitled to receive the project allowance. In the writ petition the petitioners prayed for the following relief: "It is therefore, very humbly prayed that by accepting the writ petition of the petitioners, the respondents may kindly be directed to disburse the project allowance as being paid to all other employees of PPH department w.e.f July 2006 to the completion of all the projects on the basis of equality. Any other relief admissible under law may kindly also be granted to the petitioners."
After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2020, accepted the writ petition and declared the petitioners/respondents herein as entitled to get project allowance from the date of their appointment till 18.04.2012. This judgment of the learned High Court is the subject matter of the instant appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Abdul Rashid Karnai, the learned Advocate. Representing the appellants, submitted that the judgment passed by the learned High Court is against law and the record of the case which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submitted that in the writ petition, the petitioners/respondents herein, put forth their claim that they were assigned the additional charge of the posts in the projects, hence, they are entitled to the project allowance but failed to produce any document regarding the assignment of additional charge. Furthermore, the respondents heavily relied upon the office memorandum of the Finance Department Govt of Pakistan, dated 12.08.2008, whereby, in ground (c) of para 2, it is clarified that the additional charge allowance will be allowed to the Government servants who are assigned additional charge of the posts of the projects costing up to Rs. 100.00 million, however, they will not be entitled to the project allowance.
In view of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the respondents were not entitled to the project allowance. He further contended that ERRA who is the responsible for payment of the funds, has also not been arrayed as party in the writ petition, hence, the writ petition was not maintainable. All these points were specifically raised in the written statement and argued at the time of hearing but the learned High Court neither discussed the facts of the case nor the arguments of the parties and delivered the impugned judgment in a hasty manner. In this state of affairs, the impugned judgment does not come within the purview of a judgment. He prayed for acceptance of appeal.
4. Conversely, Syed Asim Masood Gillani, the learned Advocate, representing the respondents, forcefully opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, and defended the impugned judgment, on all counts. He submitted that it is an admitted position that the respondents herein, remained performing their additional duties in different projects of reconstruction and rehabilitation under the supervision of the SERRA, hence, they are entitled to the project allowance. He further submitted that the same allowance has been granted to the employees of the other wing of the PPH Department, hence, the respondents, cannot be treated discriminately. In this state of affairs, the learned High Court has committed no illegality while handing down the impugned judgment. The appellants have failed to point out any illegality or infirmity committed by the learned High Court, hence, this appeal merits dismissal.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned Advocates representing the parties and gone through the record made available. We have minutely gone. Through the judgment of the learned High Court which neither contains detailed facts of the case nor the points raised by the learned counsel for the parties. It was enjoined upon the learned High Court to mention the points raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and resolve all those points, whereas the learned High Court has not bothered to state the points raised by the learned counsel for the parties that what are the disputed points between the parties. Under law the judgment should be based on the material available on record and reasons must be an outcome of the said material and on the basis of such reasons conclusion should be drawn but in the impugned judgment, these ingredients are missing therefore, the same does not come within the purview of a judgment.
Reference may be made to a case reported as Mehmood Hussain & another vs. Imam Din & 3 others [2019 SCR 489], wherein while dealing with the identical proposition this Court has observed as under: "It may be observed here that under law the judgment should be based on the material available on record and reasons must be an outcome of the said material and on the basis of such reasons conclusion should be drawn, but in the impugned judgment, these ingredients are missing therefore, the same does not come within the purview of a judgment ...."
Similarly in the case reported as Muhammad Yaqub Lasani Company v. Punjab Engineering Company and Punjab others [1992 CLC 2036], it was observed as under: "The judgment or order of the Court should not be much brief that one could not understand that which points have been raised. The judgment should be very clear and after examining the judgment, one should satisfy that all the disputed points have been resolved by the Court after applying judicious mind. Due consideration has been given to the facts, law and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The order should clearly contain the contentions of both the learned counsel for the parties and then the finding of the Court on those contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
In the case reported as Riaz Ahmad v. Amin Baig etc. [PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 161] at page 165 it has been Observed as under: "It is a well settled law that judgment should conform with the provisions of the law i.e. it should contain concise statement of the case, the points for determination which have been raised in the case, the decision thereon and reasons for such decision. The impugned judgment does not show that the learned Judges applied their mind to all the points raised in the grounds of the writ petition. They omitted to decide two important points. This disregard to the provisions of the law and inadvertent omission has not only wasted their valuable time but has caused unnecessary expense and trouble to the litigant public as well as encouraged further litigation.
In another case reported as Muhammad Hussain Khan v. Said Muhammad Khan and 11 others (PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 184] it has been observed at page 189 as under: "It is also well-settled law that the judgment should conform with the provisions of the law, i.e., it should contain concise statement of the case, the points for determination raised or arising in the case, a decision thereon and reasons for such decision. The impugned judgment, in ignoring the important points referred to in the above paras has flouted the principles to be followed while writing a judgment. Naturally, such an order cannot be considered a valid judgment and remand is desirable."
After going through the impugned judgment we agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment does not come within the purview of a judgment, thus, the same is not sustainable. As from the hare reading of the impugned judgment it is obvious that the learned High Court has not appreciated the material brought on record, therefore, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the remand of the case is justified.
In view of the above, this appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court with the direction to decide the same afresh in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. No order as to costs.