' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioners are Private Secretaries to the Members of the Punjab Public Service Commission. The Federal Government upgraded the post of Private Secretaries from BPS-16 to BPS-17 working with the Secretaries/Additional Secretaries and other Officers in BPS-21 and 22 on 18th March, 1986. The petitioners submitted applications before the Secretary of the Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore who forwarded the same to the Secretary (I & C), Government of the Punjab, S & GAD, Lahore vide letter, dated 15-3-1995. Similar request was also made by the Secretary of the Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore to the Secretary (I & C), Government of Punjab, S & GAD, Lahore vide letter, dated 4-9-1996. The Secretary of the Commission also recommended same relief to the Private Secretary of the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission on 15-3-1995. The respondents accepted the recommendations of the Secretary of the Commission qua the Private Secretary of the Chairman of the Commission vide order, dated 17-5-1995 whereas the recommendation of the Secretary Commission qua the petitioners was rejected. The petitioners being aggrieved filed representations before the respondents. The respondents did not decide the representations of the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No, 13281 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 22-11-2001 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners. The respondents decided the representations of the petitioners vide impugned order, dated 17-9-2002. The petitioners being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that petitioners are employees of the Special Institution as is envisaged by Rules of Business, 1974. He further submits that Special Institution in Item No, 4 are as under:--
(i) High Court;
(ii) Punjab Service Tribunal;
(iii) Punjab Public Service Commission.
' He further submits that similar request was made by the Private Secretaries of the High Court but respondents did not redress their grievance. Then the Private Secretaries of the High Court filed Writ Petition 1520-87, which was decided by this Court vide judgment, dated 7-8-1988 reported as Manzoor Hussain and others v. Province of the Punjab (1989 PLC (C.S.) 42). He further submits that the Provincial Government being aggrieved filed C.P. No, 1027-98 before the Honourable Supreme Court and the leave was refused by the Honourable Supreme Court vide order, dated 15-11-1988. He further submits that respondents, in obedience of the direction of this Court, upgraded the post of the Private Secretaries of the High Court. He further urges that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Notification, dated 18th March, 1986 the Government accepted the direction of this Court with regard to the Private Secretaries of the Lahore High Court as is envisaged from Notification, dated 23-10-1993 issued by the respondents.
3. Thelearned law officer submits that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution as the petitioners are Civil Servants. He further submits that competent authority has decided the representations of the petitioners with reasons as is evident from the impugned order of the respondents and the respondents have not granted the relief to the petitioners as a policy matter and this Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker as this Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law. He further submits that nature of work of the Private Secretaries of this Court is entirely different qua the nature of the work of the petitioners, therefore, judgment of this Court is not attracted in the present case: He further submits that Private Secretary of the Chairman of the Commission has also different nature of work as compared to the petitioners. He further submits that respondents have not granted the same relief to the other Department, therefore, action of the respondents is in accordance with law and is not in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that reasonable classification is permissible as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in I.A. Sharwani's case (1991 SCMR 1041). He further submits that judgment cited by the learned counsel of the petitioners is distinguished on facts and law as the cited judgment is related to special allowances whereas in the present controversy the grievance of the petitioners is relating to the upgradation of their post.
The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that upgradation is not part and parcel of the terms and condition. In support of his contention, he relied upon Manzoor Hussain's case (1989 PLC (C.S.) 42).
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The preliminary objection raised by the learned law officer qua the maintainability of the Constitutional petition in view of bar of Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, has no force as the petitioners are employees of the Special Institution in terms of the Rules of Business, 1974. Even otherwise the objection has no force in view of the law laid down by this Court in Manzoor Hussain and others v. Province of the Punjab' (1989 PLC (C.S.) '42) wherein it is held by this Court that upgradation is not pp and parcel of the terms and condition. It is pertinent to mention here that judgment of this Court is upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court vide order, dated 18-2-2002 passed in C.P. No, 1027, dated 15th November, 1988. It is settled principle of law that public functionaries are duty bound to act in accordance with law. Law means not only the statutory law but is also law declared by the superior Courts as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Obyar and another v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1984 Lah.
162. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "Law is here not confined to statute law alone but is used in its generic sense as connoting all that is treated as law in this country including even the judicial principles laid down from time to time by the superior Courts."
' It is admitted fact that respondents have upgraded the post of the Private Secretary of the Chairman of the Commission. This fact brings the case in the area that action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in I.A.
Sharwani's case (1991 SCMR 1041). The relevant observation is as follows:-- "(i) That equal protection of law does not envisage that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances, but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike;
(ii) that reasonable classification is permissible but it must be founded on reasonable distinction or reasonable basis;
(iii) that different law can validly be enacted for different sexes, persons in different age groups, persons having different financial standings, and persons accused by heinous crimes;
(iv) that no standard of universal application to test reasonableness of a classification can be laid down as what may be reasonable classification in a particular set of circumstances, may be unreasonable in the other set of circumstances;
(v) that a law applying to one person or one class of persons may be constitutionally valid if there is sufficient basis or reasons for it, but a classification which is arbitrary and is not founded on any rational basis is no classification as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Article 25;
(vi) that equal protection of law means that all persons equally placed be treated alike both in privilege conferred and liabilities imposed;
(vii) that in order to make a classification reasonable, it should be based:--
(a) on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out;
(b) that the differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification."
' It is pertinent to mention here that respondents are duty bourn: to decide the representations of the petitioners with reasons as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268) but the impugned order does not contain any reason qua discrimination as the respondents have upgraded the post of Private Secretary of the Chairman of the Commission but rejected the claim of the petitioners, who are Private Secretaries to the Members of the Commission. There is no distinction qua the job description of the Private Secretary of the Chairman and the Members of the Commission. It is settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as the law laid down by this Court in Ahmad Lateef Qureshi's case (PLD 1994 Lahore 3).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order of the respondents is set aside and the respondents are directed to pass necessary orders in terms of the recommendations of the Secretary of the Commission preferably within four (4) months.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.