' The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of direction to the respondent for payment of the salary of the petitioner for the period commencing from 11-2- 1997 to onward.
2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner in response to advertisement has applied for appointment as Clsss-IV employee. The application of the petitioner was assessed and he was interviewed. The Tehsil Recruitment Committee selected him as Class-IV servant.
Resultantly, vide order, dated 11-2-1997 he had been posted as Class-IV employee in the Education Department at Government Elementary School, Chak No,7-P, Tehsil Khanpur, the petitioner joined the service and reported at his place of posting in the afternoon vide joining report signed by the Headmaster of the said school. On 8-5-1998 the petitioner was transferred from Government Elementary School, Chak No,7-P, Khanpur to Government Elementary School Pira Baloch against the vacant post and thereafter he was transferred as Naib-Qasid to Government Elementary School, Gambel Pir Markaz, Sadar Khanpur. He joined his new place of posting. The petitioner has been serving the department from the core of his heart and since 11-2-1997 to 24-6-2000, in spite of the services rendered by the petitioner he had not been paid his salaries. Therefore, the petitioner has knocked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
3. The respondents were summoned and Qadir Bakhsh Deputy District Education Officer/respondent No,2 appeared in the Court. He stated that the appointment of the petitioner was not verified by the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the salary. The Headmaster of Government Elementary School, Gambel Pir had forwarded the salary bill of the petitioner but it was not sanctioned by the concerned authority. It was stated by the learned Law Officer that 8 persons were recommended by the Recruitment Committee and the appointment of 7 persons was verified by the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and the appointment of the 8th selectee/petitioner could not be verified by the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education.
4. The most significant feature of the case is that in spite of the fact that the appointment of the petitioner had not been verified by the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, as stated by the Deputy District Education Officer and the Law Officer, the respondents have been utilizing the services of the petitioner, meaning thereby that the petitioner has been performing his duties in the Department. The appointment letter was issued by the District Education Officer and later on he was transferred to different places where he has been rendering his services. There is ample proof/record. On the file of this Court that the petitioner had always joined his every place of posting under the orders of the respondents. To obtain verification was the obligation of the respondents and it was not the duty of the petitioner. If the appointment of the petitioner was not approved and according to the respondents his appointment was illegal, then why he was allowed to join his duty and if allowed, during the span of these three years why his services were not terminated. This Court has been informed that the Deputy District Education Officer, Khanpur has terminated the services of the petitioner on 22-8-2000 during the pendency of this writ petition for which the petitioner may avail of remedy available to him under the law, if so advised. The questions that boils down for determination in this case are:
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the salaries for the services rendered by him during this period?
(ii) Whether this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction issued direction to the respondents for payment of the salaries?
5. It has become crystal clear that the petitioner was terminated by the Deputy District Education Officer concerned on 22-8-2000 and before that no termination order was passed or that the petitioner was not restrained from continuing his service.
6. Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan contemplated that:-- "The State shall ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation and the gradual fulfilment of the fundamental principle, from each according to his ability to each according to his work."
' Article 4 of the Constitution has further provided that:-- "(1) To enjoy the protection of the law and treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.
(2) In particular--
(a) no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law;
(b) no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and
(c) no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do."
' Article 9 of the Constitution has further provided that:-- "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law."
' It would mean that certain guarantees have been given to the citizens of the country. In other words some fundamental rights have been granted to the citizens in the Constitution.
' Article 14 of the Constitution enumerates that:-- "(1) The dignity of man and, subject of law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable."
(2) No person shall be subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting evidence".
' Lastly, Article 18 of the Constitution has envisaged freedom of trade, business or profession. It is provided therein that:- "Subject to such qualification, if any, as may be prescribed by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business: ' Provided that----------------------------------------------------
(a) ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------
(b) - -------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) - -------------------------------------------------------------
7. The salary is the reward of a person who renders services to an individual or to the state and withholding of payment of salary/wages to an employee/servant who has performed his duties such is a glaring example of violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and also amounts to slavery. To enjoy a good or qualitative life which could ensure enjoyment of such other amenities and facilities as are enjoyed by the person in a civilized society, would not merely Mean that a man should only be able to sustain life, he should be able to enjoy it as well. To enjoy life according to his own will and facilities provided under the law is also an inalienable right of a person and if a person serves others and for his services no reward is given to him is not the practice of today's civilized world. It was the time when the law of slavery was prevailing in the- society and the rulers used to treat their subjects as their slaves or the mighty used to treat the weaks cruelly. In today's modern_ world the non-payment of reward, salary or wages of a service to an employee or servant is not only a cruel act but is also a crime and offence.
8. As observed earlier, the Constitution of this country has granted some safeguards to its citizen like safeguards to honour, dignity, life property, trade and profession therefore, non-payment of salary to a person would tantamount to violation of fundamental rights granted in Articles 2(a), 3, 4, 9, 14 and 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Total effect of non-payment of salaries to employee/servant is that they would be suffering in honour and dignity and their quality of life would also be adversely affected, therefore, the fundamental rights granted in the abovementioned Articles of the Constitution would stand contravened. This arguments is strengthened by principle resolved in case of Metropolitan Corporation Lahore v. Imtiaz Hussain Kazmi etc. (PLD 1996 Lah. 499) and Mst. Ghosia Naz v. Deputy Education Officer (1997 PLC (C.S.)
666).
9. Our religion Islam has specifically emphasised that the reward of service of a person should be paid to him immediately after completion of his service. Islam has forbidden to make slave a man by a man. All mankind is equal in the eyes of Almighty Allah. Allah, the Almighty has created or sent man in this world as independent and not as a slave and when Allah, the creator has granted fundamental rights to a person this right cannot be snatched from him by another man.
10. To earn a livelihood is also a fundamental right of a person and to lead the life according to his own will and sources is his inalienable right and to lead a life in this world and to enjoy the facilities the blessing of Almighty Allah is not only legal and Constitutional right but it is also a basic and fundamental right of a person who comes in this world and for leading such life the emoluments is the requirement and the Legislature has termed it as a salary or wages.
11. I would like to quote here the saying of Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that:-- {{URDU TEXT }}
12. The Constitution has placed some limitations and restrictions on the citizens and obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen of the country wherever he may be and every other person for the time being within Pakistan and the public functionaries of the State who shut their eyes in performing their Constitutional and legal obligations are not performing their duties efficiently and sincerely for which they are liable to be proceeded against in disciplinary actions.
13. In the instant case the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of demanding the salary/reward of his service rendered by him to the Education Department. He cannot be punished and deprived of his fundamental rights for the simple reason that his appointment was not verified by the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education or the Appellate Authority. Non- verification of the appointment of the petitioner is not his. Fault. It was the fault of those persons who were enjoying the office as seniors of the petitioner to get his appointment verified. There is no allegation against the petitioner that his appointment was illegal. The respondents kept quiet for a long period of three years and also kept their eyes shut and now when the petitioner has demanded his salary, then they have taken the stand that the appointment of the petitioner was not verified. There is no provision in the Punjab Civil Servants Act that if a person is appointed as a civil servant by a competent authority his appointment would be liable to be approved by the Appellate Authority. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education has never been the Appellate Authority for the appointment of a civil servant like the present petitioner, therefore, this condition of verification of the appointment of the employees/civil servants is contrary to the law. Thus, I have no hesitation in observing that the petitioner is entitled to demand/receive his salaries for the service rendered by him w,e,f, 11-2-1997 to onward till the date of termination of his service.
14. The Honourable Supreme Court in case of I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1041) has observed that High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, the subject-matter of which pertains to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. The dictums laid down by august Supreme Court are binding upon all the Courts subordinate to it and it is judicial dignity to follow the principles laid down by the highest Court of the country.
15. Be that as it may, an appeal by a civil servant would lie to the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and for ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder:- - "Civil servant when aggrieved by a final order, whether original or appellate, passed by a departmental authority in respect of his terms and Conditions of the service may within 30 days of the communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal."
' From the plain reading of the above said provision of law it is manifestly clear that the appeal to the Service Tribunal would lie only when a final order by a Departmental Authority or the Appellate Authority is passed and if no such order is passed and only some hindrance or obstacle is caused/created and for that act any civil servant, if aggrieved can invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In the instant case no final or appellate order has been passed against the petitioner, therefore, the petition was competently filed by the petitioner and this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is competent to issue direction to the respondents to redress the grievance of the petitioner.
16. In view of the above discussion rule nisi is complete and a direction is issued to the respondents as prayed for by the petitioner. They are further directed to make the payment of salaries of the petitioner for the period commencing from 11-2-1997 to onward till the date of termination of his service. The writ petition stands accepted.