' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 18036 and 24339 of 1996 and Writ Petition No,13228 of 1997 as common questions of tenure of each of the petitioner as Member, Punjab Public Service Commission and the salary to be drawn by them as such, are involved.
2. Punjab Public Service Commission is a statutory body created and established under the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1973 (Ordinance II of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). The functions of the Commission are to conduct tests and examinations for recruitment to provincial services and posts connected with the affairs of the Province and to such posts in or under a Corporation or other Body or Organization set up by the Government under any law and further to advise the Government on such matters as may be prescribed, relating to the terms and conditions of service of persons. The Commission consists of a Chairman and such number of Members as may be determined by the Governor of the Province. Each of the petitioner was appointed as Member of the Commission. The following chart reflecting the necessary date in relation to each of the petitioner will be relevant and fruitful: Date of BirthDate of AppointmentDate of attainment of age of 63 yearsDate of Expiry of Tenure Organelle DeterminedChanged Date of Expiry of Tenure Under the Impugned
Mr.Saeed Mehtab Butt W. P.
No.- 18036/9626-4- 193430-5-1991 25-4-199725-4-1997 Vide Annex.C31-12-1996 Dr. Muhammad Jamil Akhtar.
W.P.No.24339/9612-12- 193519-10-1993 11-12-1998 31-12-1996 Major-General (Retd.)
Naseer Ahmed Khan.
W.P.No.13228/97)9-6- 193716-8-1992 8-6-200021-8-1999Vide Annex.C8-6-1997
3. The controversy has arisen on account of the amendments brought about in the original Ordinance by way of the Punjab Public Service Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 (Punjab Ordinance No,XIII of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Ordinance) and the subsequent repeal of Ordinance XIII of 1993 under Article 128 (2)(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 after three months from the date of promulgation i,e, October 3, 1993. Under the Ordinance the terms and conditions of service of the Members were to be determined by the Governor. Under section 4 thereof the terms of the office of a Member was not to exceed 5 years although a Member could be reappointed for another term not exceeding 3 years. The Amending Ordinance substituted the original provisions as contained in section 4 and provided that the term of the office of a Member shall be 7 years. It was, however, provided that a person already attaining the age of 59 years will not be appointed as a Member. Section 5 of the Amending Ordinance is crucial and laid down that "Notwithstanding anything in the said Ordinance or any order or instrument. a Member of the Commission holding office on the commencement of this Ordinance shall continue to hold office till he completes the term of 7 years or attains the age of 63 years, whichever is earlier".
4. It will be seen that in cases of Saeed Mehtab Butt and Major- General (Retd.) Naseer Ahmed Khan, petitioners, at one time, the date of expiry of each of the petitioner was fixed according to the provisions of the Amending Ordinance but after the repeal of the same the date was refaxed keeping in view the original provisions as contained in the Ordinance. In the case of Dr. Muhammad Jamil Akhtar, though no date of expiry was fixed but on 19-10-1993, the date of his appointment, the Amending Ordinance provided for a 7 years' term or until attainment of age of 63, whichever was earlier. As is obvious, this changed legal position has given rise to the controversy regarding the tenure of each of the petitioner, the rival positions being reflected in the above chart.
5. Another controversy pertains to scale of pay. Admittedly, under the original legal dispensation a Member of the Commission was to get BS-20 unless he was already getting a higher scale. On 5- 10-1993, the relevant rules namely the Punjab Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1978 were contended and the amended Rule 4 provided that BS-21 along with status, allowances and privileges attached to this pay scale would be admissible to the Member. M/s. Saeed Mehtab Butt and Doctor Muhammad Jamil Akhtar, the petitioners, claim that with effect from 5-10-1993 they are entitled to the grant of salary etc. In BS-21 while the third petitioner namely Major-General (Retd.) Naseer Ahmed Khan does not make any such claim as apparently his terms and conditions granted him BS-21. Admittedly, the amendments brought about in the Punjab Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978 on 5-10-1993 are intact and as informed at the bar, are part of the statute, in spite of the repeal of the Amending Ordinance. The other controversy, therefore, is whether the above-noted two petitioners can validly claim grant of BS-21 with effect from 5-10-1993.
6. The case of Mr. Saeed Mehtab Butt (Writ Petition No, 18036 of 1996) has become infructuous in so far as the question of tenure is concerned, since this petitioner attained the age of 63 years on 25- 4-1997 and has, under the interim orders of this Court, served as Member up to the said date in spite of the impugned order fixing the date of expiry as 31-12-1996. To this extent, therefore, the petition is held to have fructified.
7. The question of entitlement to pay scale may be taken up first as, in my view, it does not present much difficulty for resolution. In each case the order of appointment stated that the terms and conditions shall be settled separately. Most of the terms and conditions, however, are provided for by Punjab Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978 framed in exercise of power conferred by section 10 of the Ordinance. Rule 4 provided that a Member shall receive pay in BPS-20 and the letter of settlement of terms and conditions also said the same. Then came the amendments made in the (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978, on 5-10-1993 i.c and this provided BS- 21 for a Member. The amendments in rules have also been made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Ordinance. As noted and conceded at the bar, these amendments remain intact and have not been done away with. Consequently, and notwithstanding the promulgation and repeal of the Amending Ordinance, a Member is entitled to BS-21 because this is so provided by the (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978, as amended. The denial of the respondent- Government to grant BS-21 to M/s. Saeed Mehtab Butt and Doctor Muhammad Jamil Akhtar, the petitioners, is held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This will be all the moreso in the case of Doctor Muhammad Jamil Akhtar who was appointed Member on 19-10-1993, after the enforcement of the Amending Ordinance as well as the amending rules. It is further declared that with effect from 5-10-1993, these two petitioners are entitled to BS-21 along with the consequential privileges and allowances etc.
8. The attack on the impugned orders dated 7-10-1996, reducing the tenure is manifold. One that the order has been passed without prior notice and hearing and two, that the same is violate of section 5 of the Ordinance which lays down the procedure for removal of the Member. It is contended that reducing the term, in fact, amounts to removal and, therefore, the procedure laid down for removal in section 5 of the Ordinance had to be complied with. It is further argued that the repeal of the Amending Ordinance under Article 128 of the Constitution did not affect the previous operation of the Ordinance nor take away the right already accruing to the petitioners.
Reliance for this purpose is placed on large number of precedent cases including the case titled Government of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department v. Zia Ullah Khan and 2 others (1992 SCMR 602). The impugned action on the other hand is defended by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khichi, by contending that it is not a case of removal of a Member but the dispute really is to the fixation of the term of office of the Member and as such the procedure laid down in section 5 of the Ordinance was not required to be followed. It is urged that with the repeal of the Amending Ordinance under Article 128 of the Constitution, legal dispensation prevailing before 3-10-1993 reverted and in the circumstances the respondent- Government was perfectly justified in re-settling the tenure of each of the petitioners in terms of the Ordinance of 1978. Reliance has been placed on the cases titled Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadri, Advocate v. The Administrator, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1972 Lahore 316), Mian Muhammad Aslam and 3 others v. The Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and another 1990 MLD 1725) and host of other judgments including some from Indian jurisdiction.
9. The real controversy in these cases is the precise tenure of the petitioners. It does not seem to be a case of removal of a Member for which the procedure is laid down in section 5 of the Ordinance.
Section 5, to my mind, would be attracted where the term of office is not in dispute but a Member, enjoying a settled tenure, is sought to be removed on charge of misconduct or on the allegation that he has become incapable of properly performing the duties of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity. In the circumstances, there is no force in the contention of Mr. Zia Ullah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order should be struck down on the ground of the same being violate of section 5 of the Ordinance.
10. Mr. Zia Ullah, Advocate, however, has to succeed on other grounds. Admittedly while the Amending Ordinance was in force, the respondent-Government fixed the term of two of the petitioners namely Saeed Mehtab Butt and Major-General (Retd.) Naseer Ahmed Khan, in accordance with the Amending Ordinance. The third petitioner namely Doctor Muhammad Jamil Akhtar was appointed on 19-10-1993 while the. Amending Ordinance was promulgated on 3-10- 1993 the Amending Ordinance did provide for a term of seven years or up to the attainment of age of 63 years, whichever was earlier. In case of each of the petitioner, therefore, a right accrued in favour of the petitioners to continue serving for a period laid down in the Amending Ordinance. In this connection section 5 of the Amending Ordinance is equally relevant. As noted above, this section provided that notwithstanding anything in the said Ordinance or any order of instrument, a Member of the Commission holding office on the commencement of this Ordinance, shall continue to hold office till he completes the term of 7 years or attains the age of 63 years, whichever is earlier. Section 5 in terms straightaway created a right in M/s. Saeed Mehtab Butt and Major- General (Retd.) Naseer Ahmed Khan to enjoy a tenure of 7 years or until the attainment of the age of 63 years. In recognition of the mandate of section 5 of the Amending Ordinance, the respondent-Government issued Annexure 'C' in each of the writ petitions fixing the date of expiry of term of petitioner Saeed Mehtab Butt, as 25-4-1997 and petitioner, Major-General (Retd.) Naseer Ahmed Khan as 21-8-1999, when both of them will complete the age of 63 years. In the case of third petitioner namely Doctor Muhammad Jamil Akhtar appointed on 19-10-1993, section 4 of the Amending Ordinance itself provided that "the term of office of a Member shall be 7 years". The term having been fixed by statute, has to be allowed to this petitioner also. It is, therefore, clear that in case of each of the petitioners the provisions of Amending Ordinance were applicable and as seen in cases of M/s. Saeed Mehtab Butt and Major-General (Retd.) Naseer Ahmed Khan, the respondent-Government itself accepted that position.
11. The question arises whether the repeal of the Amending Ordinance in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution, changes the above legal position. The answer to my mind is in the negative. Reliance is placed on Article 264 of the Constitution which lays down that where a law is repealed or it deemed to have been repealed by, under, or by virtue of the Constitution, the repeal shall not, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution---
(b) affect the previous operation of the law or anything duly done or suffered under law;
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the law;
12. The Amending Ordinance is deemed to have been repealed under or by virtue of Article 128 of the Constitution and as provided in clause (b) of Article 264 this repeal did not affect the previous operation of the Amending Ordinance. In these cases, the Amending Ordinance operated to give a different and larger tenure to each of the petitioners and mere repeal, therefore, would not affect this operation. The case would also be covered by clause (c) as each of the petitioner can claim to have acquired a right and a privilege under the Amending Ordinance and merely because the Amending Ordinance stood repealed under Article 128 of the Constitution, the repeal would not affect their rights and privileges.
13. The cases cited by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khichi, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, are not to the point inasmuch as these cases either proceeded on different facts or are cases of repeal followed by fresh legislation. This distinction is important as in cases of repeal followed by fresh legislation the legislative intention has to be gathered from the fresh legislation. The present are cases of mere repeal under Article 128. The matter will, therefore, be governed by Article 264 of the Constitution and as noted above, under this Article a mere repeal does not affect the previous operation of the law nor any right and privilege acquired under the repealed law. If the respondent-Government wanted to fall back and apply the provision of the Ordinance in case of the three petitioners, it could not simply rely on repeal of the Amending Ordinance but has to bring into force some legal measures so as to wash away the effect of the previous operation of the repealed Ordinance or undo the right and privilege acquired while the repealed Ordinance was in existence. Admittedly, there is no legislation following the repeal. The re-fixation/reduction of tenure vide orders, dated 7-10-1996, therefore, is entirely illegal.
14. I also uphold the submission of Mr. Zia Ullah, Advocate, that if at all the Government could competently pass the impugned order, it could do so only after prior notice and hearing to each of the affected petitioner. The reason is simple. The petitioners acquired a right and a privilege under the repealed Ordinance and if the said right or privilege is sought to be taken away, the affected party had to he heard and its point of view/argument duly considered. Undisputedly, no prior notice was issued to any of the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The same has, therefore, to be struck down on this technical ground as well.
15. During the course of hearing it was also argued that the Amending Ordinance of 1993 being temporary in nature could not make permanent changes in the Ordinance of 1978 and with its repeal the amendments also leave the field. This may or may not be so. To my mind, this question need not be decided since the petitions can be disposed of on the points noted above.
16. For the above-noted reasons, all three petitions are allowed and while holding the impugned orders to be without lawful authority and, therefore, of no legal effect it is declared that each of the petitioner is entitled to serve as a Member, Punjab Public Service Commission according to the tenure fixed in the Amending Ordinance and further that each of the petitioner is entitled to the grant of BS-21 with all its benefits and privileges etc. With effect from 5-10-1993 when the amendments in the Punjab Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978 were made. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
Petition accepted.
1998 PLC (C.S.) 542 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Ajmal Mian,C.J, Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ IQBAL AHMAD and others versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others Civil Appeals Nos. 818 to 840 of 1997, decided on 4th March, 1998.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5-1-1997 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos.329(R) to 351(R) of 1996).
(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- ----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)---Four tier service structure of teachers serving in Federal Government Educational Institutions-Non-inclusion of Trained Graduate teachers in such structure---Petitioners aggrieved from Policy of Education Department claimed that in summary put up before Prime Minister for approval their names were included in those employees who were to be upgraded but subsequently their names were excluded from such list without referring back case to Prime Minister---Service Tribunal however, rejected petitioners' grievance--Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was contrary to judgment of Supreme Court reported as Government of the Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid 1991 SCMR 696. [p. 547] A Government of the Punjab v.
Muhammad Awais Shahid 1991 SCMR 696 rel.
(b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212---Formation of four tiers of Federal Government employees of educational institutions---Non-inclusion of petitioner's name who were trained Government teachers in such tiers--Effect---Matter was referred back to Authorities with direction that appellant's case be re-examined---If reduction of trained Graduate teachers' posts for inclusion in four tier scheme had been made without making any back reference to Prime Minister (who had granted approval of original scheme wherein specific posts for such teachers had been included) such matter should be placed before Prima Minister in which it should be pointed out that recently 33 per cent. Posts of BS-17 (Selection Grade) belonging to cadre of lady teachers in B.S. 16 relating to Islamabad Model Colleges has been included in said scheme under Office Memo.
Of Ministry of Education---Prime Minister should also examine, as to whether appellants were placed in same position as Trained Teachers of Islamabad Model Colleges. [p. 5481 B Government of the Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid 1991 SCMR 696 and Muhammad Aslam v. General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore 1994 SCMR 1626 ref. Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all Appeals).
Mian Tariq Mehmood, Deputy Attorney-General and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all Appeals).
Date of hearing: 4th March, 1998.
' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above 23 Civil Appeals as they are directed against a common judgment, dated 5-1-1997 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos.329(R) to 351(R) of 1996 filed by the present appellants for the following relief: "In view of above it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Selection Grade Posts (BPS-17) of the Teaching Staff be included for the purpose of inducing Four Tier Service Structure to remove the anomaly and the appellant may be given proper place in the set-up with effect from the due date after summoning the record and the respondents. Any other relief which this learned Tribunal may deem expedient and proper be also granted.
' It is further prayed that all consequential benefits be also granted to the appellant."
' The above appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal under a common judgment the operative portion of which reads as follows:-- "In pursuance of the Establishment Division U.O. The Ministry of Education gave the details which is not being confronted. The case is to be decided on the merits, if there was any ambiguity. It does not mean that ineligible persons could be upgraded and Mr. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to convince us whether the appellants who were T.G.Ts. Could be designated as Headmasters/Headmistresses and thereafter, they could be eligible for promotion to B-18. In case we hold that all selection grade Holders automatically become eligible for advancement to other cadres and promotion to next higher grade, this will be unjust and beyond our scope.
' For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss all these 23 appeals, with no order as to costs."
2. The brief facts are that the appellants were working as Trained Graduate Teachers under the Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad in BPS-15. They were granted selection grade BPS-17 in 1983 in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the grant of above grade. It appears that the posts in BPS-17 were subsequently upgraded under a proposal of the Establishment Division. It seems that a summary, dated 11-2-1993 was placed before the Prime Minister of Pakistan for introducing 4-tier system and up gradation (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) of the posts relating to the Federal Government Educational Institutions mentioned therein. The above summary reads as follows: "Government of Pakistan Ministry of Education Summary for the Prime Minister ' Subject: Introduction of Four-Tier Service Structure for Federal Government Schools Teachers of Islamabad.
' On the analogy of introduction of 4-tier (1:15:34:50) structure approved by N.-W.F.P. And Punjab Governments, the question of providing better service prospects to Federal Government School Teachers was considered in consultation with the Finance and Establishment Divisions (Annexure 1 and Annexure 11), adoption of above four-tier system and up gradation of the following posts in Federal Government Educational Institutions has been agreed to:-- MALE
(i) 3 posts from B-19 to B-20 under the designation of Principal.
(ii) 45 posts from B-18 to B-19 under the designation of Headmaster.
(iii) 101 posts from B-17 to B-18 under the designation of Deputy Headmaster.
FEMALE
(i) 4 posts from B-19 to B-20 under the designation of Principal.
(ii) 52 posts from B-18 to B-19 under the designation of Headmistress.
(iii) 119 posts from B-17 to B-18 under the designation of Deputy Headmistress.
2. Up gradation of above posts will take effect from the date the posts are actually filled in by the eligible persons in the higher pay scheme, subject to the approval of the Prime Minister.
3. The Minister for Education has already approved the proposal.
4.. Approval of the Prime Minister to the proposal cleared by Establishment/Finance Division as under para.1 is solicited.
(Sd.)
(Mazharul Haq Siddiqui), Education Secretary.
' Through Secretary, Establishment Division.
' Secretary to the Prime Minister, Prime Minister's Secretariat, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
M/O Education's U.O. No,F4-33/90-CEI, dated 11-2-1992.
' The same was approved in March, 1992 by the Prime Minister. The relevant communication approving the summary reads as follows: ' "Subject: INTRODUCTION OF FOUR-TIER SERVICE STRUCTURE FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS TEACHERS OF ISLAMABAD.
' Reference Ministry of Education's summary for the Prime Minister bearing U.O. No,F.4-33/90-CEI, dated the 11th February, 1992 on the subject mentioned above.
2. The Prime Minister has been pleased to approve the four-tier system/structure for the Federal Government schools teachers of Islamabad and the up gradation of the posts set out in para.1 of the summary under reference with effect from the date the upgraded posts are actually filled in by the eligible persons in the higher pay scales.
3. Ministry of Education is advised to upgrade the posts in the manner and style as contained in the Establishment Division's O.M. No,8/10/83-R.I, dated the 6th March, 1983 (copy enclosed).
(Sd.)
(Shama Khalid), Deputy Secretary.
Ministry of Education (Mr. Niaz Muhammad, S.0.), Islamabad. Estt. Div. U.O. No,8/43/91-R.I, dated 12- 3-1992."
3. It may be noticed that under caption Male in sub-para. (iii) 101 posts are mentioned from BPS-17 to BPS-18, whereas under caption Female in sub-para. (iii) 119 posts have been mentioned from BPS-17 to BPS-18. It is the case of the appellants that the above figures of 101 for the Male and 119 for the Female included the Trained Teachers which were granted Selection Grade BPS-17. However, it seems that the Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division by its Office Memorandum, dated 21st September, 1992 revised the above figures and reduced BPS-17 posts from 101 to 42 for the Male and 37 from 119 for the Female. By this revision the Trained Teachers who were granted Selection Grade of BPS-17 were excluded which included the appellants. The appellants agitated the above matter in the department and then filed the above appeals before the Tribunal without success.
Thereupon, they filed in this Court petitions for leave to appeal which were granted to consider the question whether the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Government of the Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid (1991 SCMR 696).
4. In support of the above appeals Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, learned counsel for the appellants urged two points; firstly, that the Trained Teachers who were granted Selection Grade BPS-17 were included in the Scheme which was approved by the Prime Minister in March, 1992 and their exclusion by the Cabinet Secretariat without referring back the matter to the Prime Minister was illegal; and secondly, that as late as on 26-7-1997 the 33% of BPS-17 (Selection Grade) belonging to the cadre of lady teachers in BPS-16 have been granted the benefit of the Scheme through Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulation Wing) Office Memorandum No,F.1(23)Imp/96, dated 26-7-1997 and, therefore, the appellants have been discriminated in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
' Mian Tariq Mehmood, learned Deputy Attorney-General has urged that the appellants had no vested right to claim that they should be included in the Scheme. However, he was unable to submit as to whether the exclusion of the Trained Teachers on the basis of the aforesaid Cabinet Secretariat Office Memorandum dated 21-9-1992 was after making reference back to the Prime Minister. As regards the alleged discrimination, his submission was that he had not received copy of the Finance Division (Regulations Wing) Office Memorandum dated 26-7-1997 and, therefore, was unable to make any statement in this regard. His further submission was that in any case, this Office Memorandum was not the subject-matter of the appeals before the Tribunal and that the appellants are introducing new plea at this stage.
5. It may be observed that in the case of Government of the Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid (1991 SCMR 696) (supra) this Court has held as follows: It is an admitted fact that the higher scale NPS-18 in the case of Civil Judges, and the higher scale NPS-20 in the case of District and Sessions Judges, is enjoyed by the same post holder of the respective category. In other words, there is no higher post to which their appointment takes place on such improvement in the status. Nevertheless, there is an improvement in the Grade, as the Civil Judge from NPS-17 goes to NPS-18 and the District and Sessions Judge from NPS-19 to BPS-20. On the strength of definition of the word 'promotion' as provided in the official documents, even this change of grade of scale of pay for the better would amount to promotion."
' The above view was reiterated in the case of Muhammad Aslam v. General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore (1994 SCMR 1626) while declining leave against the judgment of the Service Tribunal which had taken the view in line with the former case. It appears that the Cabinet Secretariat had not taken into consideration the above aspect while issuing the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 21-9-1992 and reducing the number of posts of BPS-17 for inclusion of the same in the Scheme. Secondly, there is nothing on the record to indicate that a back reference was made to the Prime Minister for re-approval of the revised Scheme. The above Office Memorandum of the Finance Division (Regulations Wing) dated 26-7-1997 indicates that 33% posts of BPS-17 (Selection Grade) belonging to the cadre of lady teachers in BPS-16 have been granted the benefit of the Scheme. The above Memorandum reads as under:-- "No, F.1(23)Imp/96 Islamabad, the 26th July, 1997.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM ' Subject: INTRODUCTION OF FOUR-TIER PAY SCALES IN THE PRIMARY SET-UP OF ISLAMABAD MODEL COLLEGES.
' The undersigned is directed to say that in compliance with the Finance Minister's D.O. Letter No,212-FM/91, dated 17-1-1991, Four-Tier Service Structure is introduced in the Primary Set-up of Islamabad Model Colleges as detailed below:
(i) Four-Tier (1:15:34:50) service structure is introduced with effect from 1-6-1997 in the School Teaching Staff of Primary Set-up of Islamabad Model Colleges in BPS-17 and above.
(ii) The posts of lady teachers in BPS-16 shall be manned 67% in BPS-16 and 33% in BPS-17 (Selection Grade) with effect from 1-6-1997 .
' Note.---33% posts of BPS-17 (Selection Grade) belonging to the cadre of lady teachers in BPS-16 shall be reckoned for the purpose of calculation under the above Four-Tier (1:15:34:50) Service Structure."
6. We are, therefore, of the view that it will be just and proper to refer the matter back to the respondents with the direction that the appellants' case may be re-examined. If the reduction of the above posts for inclusion in the Scheme has been made without making any back reference to the Prime Minister, the matter may be placed for re-examination before the Prime Minister in which it may also be pointed out that recently 33%. Posts of BPS-17 (Selection Grade) belonging to the cadre of lady teachers in BPS-16 relating to Islamabad Model Colleges have been included in the Scheme under the above Office Memorandum. It may also be examined, as to whether the appellants are placed in the same position as the Trained Teachers working in Islamabad Model Colleges.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.