CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.----In this petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, leave is claimed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, dated 20-10-1996, whereby respondent's Appeal No.267 was allowed and he was held entitled to pay and allowance, privileges and status of the post of Superintendent Jail with effect from 21-12-1989, being the date he started working as such.
2. There is no need for separately dealing with the facts leading to the impugned order, dated 20- 10-1996. Suffice it to say that the case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that on the submission of a summary by the Department for promoting him under section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the Chief Minister approved his promotion and consequently order, dated 21-12-1989 was issued which reads thus:-- "NO. PRS-A1-3/83, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT, Dated Lahore the December 21st, 1989.
"ORDER The following postings and transfers of Superintendents Jail/Deputy Superintendents Jail are hereby ordered with immediate effect:-- Sr. No,Name of the Officer From To
1. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar LalwaniSuperintendent, Central Mianwali. Jail,Assistant Inspector-General Prisons, Punjab, Lahore.
2. Mr. Abdul Sattar Ajiz Superintendent, District Sargodha. Jail,Superintendent, District Jail, Miawali in his own pay and scale.
3. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Deputy Superintendent Jail, Sahiwal. Superintendent, District Jail, Sargodha in his own pay and scale.
All to move simultaneously.
(Sd.)
JIWAN KHAN, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, ROME DEPARTMENT."
The condition in the last column against the name of the petitioner that his such promotion will be "..in his own pay and scale" was illegally inserted in the order, dated 21-12-1989. The petitioner had been working as Superintendent Jail since 21-12-1989 against an existing vacancy and, therefore, the availability of the vacancy for being filled by persons similarly placed as the petitioner determines the entitlement without any constraints whatsoever.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, learned counsel representing the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Department and the Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore as also Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in terms of notice, dated 10-2- 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated his stand noted in order, dated 10-2-1998 to the effect that the respondent was entitled to get the pay of the post of Superintendent Jail and not seniority. He half-heartedly tried to get out of the observations made by the learned Tribunal in para. 7 of the impugned judgment which reads thus:-- "7. The learned DA had no objection to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to the pay and allowances, privileges and status of the post of Superintendent Jail w.e.f. the date he was actually working as such i.e. 21-12-1989."
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, order, dated 21-12-1989 made by respondent No.2 had specifically referred to respondent's entitlement to work as Superintendent Jail in his own pay and scale and that such condition could not be undone by the Service Tribunal.
However, Ch. Muhammad Ashraf learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the plea being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with the arguments that even the case relied upon by the Government through Mr. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman before this Court on 10-2- 1998 i.e. Accountant-General Pakistan Revenues, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Arbab Mukhtar Ahmad (1986 SCM R 1206), does not support their cause.
A perusal of the report of the precedent case read in conjunction with the admitted position that the respondent was approved for promotion on regular basis when such summary was submitted to the Chief Minister, it becomes clear that the mere mention against the name of the respondent of his, promotion being ".. in his own pay and scale" was foreign to the lis. The Tribunal did not transgress the confines to its jurisdiction while recording the concession of the learned District Attorney in para. 7 of the impugned judgment. The respondent having succeeded in the appeal before the Tribunal, on the strength of his case duly supported by the material on the record in that regard, has not been shown to be suffering from any taint whatsoever. Not finding any question of general public importance in this case, the instant petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.