The admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Ward Servant in the respondent-Corporation vide an order dated 11-11-1989 (Annex-B). Thereafter, the petitioner got training of E.P.T. Vaccination and obtained the requisite certificate from the Director, Health Services, Punjab who recommended that the petitioner is a suitable to work as a Vaccinator with a qualified Doctor. This recommendation was issued on 10-2-1990 (Annex-C). Vide a letter dated 26- 5-1990 (Annex-E), the petitioner was posted against the said post of Vaccinator in his own pay and scale and ever since he is working as such at various Vaccination Centers. The grounds being made out is that although he is working as a Vaccinator he is not being paid the emoluments for the said post.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to the case of Postmaster General, Eastern Circle (E.P.), Dacca and another v. Muhammad Hashim (PLD 1978 SC 61) that the petitioner is entitled to the said emoluments or to the regularization of his services having been served for more than a decade as such. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that there is some ban and the matter cannot be considered till the ban is lifted.
3. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the parties. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner holds the requisite qualifications and is eligible to be appointed as a Vaccinator in BS-5. He was appointed in the year 1990. This writ petition was filed in the year 1997 and the matter is being heard today in the year 2002. There is no complaint that the petitioner is not efficient or in any manner is not capable or eligible to perform his said duties which he is so performing since the last 12 years.
4. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has reiterated the view taken in the judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Abdul Qayyum v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and another (1993 SCM R 1097). Mr. Ibrar Majal, Advocate present in Court in connection with_some other case has drawn my attention to a judgment of Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P. v. I.A. Sherwani and another (PLD 1994 SC 72). Now this judgment was delivered with reference to the rule which provided for payment of reduced emoluments to a suspended Government servant. It was held that such a Government servant was entitled to full amount of his salary and all other benefits and facilities.
What has attracted my attention in the said dictum of the Honourable Shariat Appellate Bench is the following command of Allah Almighty in the Holy Qur'an quoted by Mr. Justice Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani (as his Lordship then was) at page 77 of the report:- "Woe to those who give short measure, those who, when they have to receive by measures from men, exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due". (83: 1-3).
' Thereafter, with reference to excerpts from "Ma'ariful Qur'an" by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi proceeds to observe "although the word "Tatfif" used in the Holy verse literally means "giving short measure" or short weight" yet, in the normal usage it covers all the situations where a person gives too little and asks too much. In the said Book the learned author has opined that it is forbidden ({{URDU TEXT}}) to give less than what is due to a person entitled.
5. On my part, I have been able to dig out the case of Sarwar Ali Khan v Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh and another (PLD 1994 SC 233), wherein Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan followed its earlier dictum in the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Shahpur Jan and 2 others (1986 SCM R 991). In the said case of Sarwar Ali Khan, Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah (As his Lordship then was), in his leading opinion observed, with reference to the contention that the concerned civil servant was being paid special pay in accordance with applicable rules in lieu of the services being performed by him at the higher post without being promoted regularly, at page 236 of the report;-- "This cannot be stretched to cover the case in hand, where the incumbent has worked against that post on his own pay and status for three years, particularly when there was no legal impediment in his way to be promoted at that .Time on regular basis when he was inducted on 5-7-1988. In the instant case, since the appellant was eligible and qualified for promotion to B-18, there appears no justifiable reason to deprive him of the salary and other benefits of that post for a period of three years, which he would have received, had he been promoted on regular basis. The appellant had discharged full duties and responsibilities of the higher post and in the absence of some plausible reasons, he cannot be deprived of the above proposition, other benefits connected with that post."
6. In the present case it stands admitted that the petitioner is performing the duties as Vaccinator being fully qualified for the same since the last 12 years but has not been paid his dues accordingly. This act of the respondent is without lawful authority and is accordingly declared as such. The writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to pay the emoluments in accordance with the duties being done by the petitioner as. a Vaccinator. However, till such time that the services of the petitioner are regularized the payment shall be made with reference to the minimum pay of the higher scale in which the petitioner is working.
7. No order as to costs. 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.