' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Messrs Muhammad Siddique, Ghulam Ali, Saddaqat Ali, Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Siddiqi, Muhammad Aslam, Ihsanul Haq Chughtai and Sh. Iftikhar Ahmad, all Stenographers in the office of Advocate-General Punjab, Lahore, have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary Finance Department, Lahore and the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Services and General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2: By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the decision of the Government dated 4th June, 1984 be set aside being discriminatory against the principles of law laid by the Superior Courts and the appeal be accepted and they be upgraded to B. S. 15 as their counterparts are drawing from 1st July, 1983, the date of upgradation of the Stenographers.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are working as Stenographers in B. S. 12 in the Office of Advocate-General, Punjab. They made representations through Advocate-General Punjab to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Law Department for upgradation of their posts from B. S. 12 to B. S.
15. However, the Finance Department took decision on 4th June, 1984 showing inability to agree with their proposal. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were attached with the Law Officers of Grade 20 and the nature and volume of work shouldered by them is identical with those of the Judges Stenographers, therefore, they may be upgraded because the Stenographers working in the High Court have already been upgraded. He has further pointed out that even the stenographers attached with the Registrar Grade 20 and the Additional Registrar Grade 18 of the Lahore High Court, who were in N. P. S. 12 are also working in B. S.
15. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the strenuous duties of the appellants as compared to the working of their counterparts in the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Service Tribunal, Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Accountant-General Office. He has gone to the extent to submit that the appellants' work was no less or different than the work being performed by the Stenographers of the Judges of the Lahore High Court. He has made detailed arguments in this respect and has submitted that they have to arrange files, maintain personal record of Law Officers, collect Peshi and arrange the same and to contact the relevant officials of the department concerned, collect reference law books for the facility of the Law Officers, to attend telephone calls and maintain daily diaries with regard to the carry out personal orders of the Law Officers.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorneas adopted the detailed comments of the Finance Department and has submitted that the claim of the appellants is misconceived and they can in no manner be equated with the Stenographers of the Judges of the Lahore High Court and has submitted that the post is given higher pay scale on the level of responsibilities and nature of duties. According to him the Stenographers of Law Officers of the Office of Advocate-General do not perform such duties as to be considered for upgradation of the posts from B. S. 12 to B. S.
15. He has cited examples of certain officers like Chief Consulting Architect Punjab, Detector General, Local Government and Rural Development Department etc. Which according to him carry Pay Scale No, 20 but the Stenographers attached to these posts are drawing pay in B. S.
12. In this manner he has rebutted the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Officers holding B. S. 20 should have invariably stenographers of B. S.
15. Similarly it has been vehemently argued that the volume of work with the Judges of the Lahore High Court is justified one and P. A.-cum-Judgment-Writers have been given B. S. 15 who were upgraded in 1975 to N. P. S. 14, but the workload of Law Officers has no comparison with the workload of the Judges of the High Court. Similarly according to him the post of Registrar and Additional Registrar of the Lahore High Court are of administrative nature, the workload and duties of these two posts are also voluminous in nature, therefore, the Stenographers in higher pay scale have been provided.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that to equate the Stenographers of Advocate-General Punjab, with that of P. A.-cum-Judgment-Writers of the Judges of the Lahore High Court, would not be justified. The Judge of the High Court is to deliver a number of judgments daily and the work performed by the P. A.-cum-Judgment-Writer is certainly more voluminous than the work of Law Officers as claimed by the appellants. Similarly the post of Registrar and Additional Registrar, Lahore High Court, is of administrative nature and a Stenographer attached with these posts/Officers has to perform much more arduous work than the Stenograppers of the Advocate-General Punjab. It is a matter of common knowledge that the duties of the Stenographers in the Office of Advocate-General are not so arduous as compared with the Stenographers of Board of Revenue, Civil Secretariat and the Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. Whereas to collect Peshi and to contact the relevant officers of the Department is a very simple matter. The Law Officers are kept in contact by the representatives of the Department who also brief him and provide him all the relevant documents for the purpose. It would be a tall claim of the appellants that the Stenographer attached with the Law Officers would be in a position to make reference in the law books for the use of the Law Officers as by virtue of his education he is not in a position to do so. The Law Officer is to appear in the Court and contest the cases but the Stenographer has nothing to do thereafter whereas the meetings are held frequently in the offices of the Secretaries to Government Members, Board of Revenue to prepare the list of all such officers, inform them their date of arrival and the subject for discussions, arrangement for supply of working papers and transportation is among a few responsibilities for the P. A. At all such meetings. It will be useful to point out at this stage that originally these posts were in Grade-8 and 10 against which the appellants are working and later on the inception of Basic Scales Scheme, they have been given BS-12 and in this manner the appellants have already been benefited by this upgradation and further upgradation to B S-15 would not be justified in the light of the detailed discussions regarding their responsibilities and duties so made by us in the earlier part of our judgment.
8. Resultantly we find no merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no orders as to costs.