Muhammad Younus
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Muhammad Younus as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,665
- Pages: 10
BEFORE THE HON’BLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
W.P. No. ____________/2001 Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad Shafi, Social Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District Bahawalpur. …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1.
The District Accounts Officer, Muzaffargarh.
2.
The District Accounts Officer, Multan.
3.
The Accountant General, Govt. of Punjab, Lahore. ……RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That brief facts leading to the instant writ petition are that in the year 1987, petitioner qualified Punjab Public Service examination and was appointed as Social Welfare officer in BPS-16, with effect from 12.1.1988 in the department of Social Welfare, Zakat & Ushar Department Govt. of Punjab. Accordingly petitioner was appointed as Social Welfare Officer and was posted to U.C.D. Project Teshil Ali Pur, District Muzaffargarh.
2.
That the Governor of Punjab vide Govt. of Punjab Social Welfare and Zakat Department Notification No. US (E)1028/83-VOL-II dated 28.11.1988, copy at ANNEX “A”, upgraded the post of Social Welfare Officer from Basic pay Contd. Page 2
-2scale 16 to BPS-17 with effect from 22.10.1988 subject to certain condition of educational qualifications, laid down in the aforesaid Notification. 3.
That as petitioner was eligible for the post of Social Welfare Officer in BPS-17 as per terms and conditions laid down in the Notification dated 28.11.1988 (ANNEX “A”), therefore, petitioner was appointed as Social Welfare Officer in BPS-17 (in upgraded post) with effect from 22.10.1988 at U.C.D. Project Tehsil Ali Pur District Muzaffargarh.
4.
That on 22.10.1988 petitioner’s basic pay in BPS-17 was fixed Rs. 2065/- per month. The annual increment to be awarded on 1.12.1988 was not allowed by respondent No. 1 despite the fact, petitioner was eligible for the said increment and from then, petitioner is suffering loss of one annual increment. On 29.3.89, petitioner was posted to R.C.D. Project Chak 5 Faiz, Multan and Last Pay Certificate (LPC) issued by the respondent No. 1 but annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 was lapsed in that LPC and that loss is still continuing.
5.
That in the year 2000, petitioner was qualifying for move-over in BPS-18, therefore, petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 through written application dated 17.8.2000, copy at ANNEX “B” for revision of pay after allowing one increment admissible on 1.12.1988 but no response was given. The Petitioner again submitted an other application dated 9.9.2000, copy at ANNEX “C” to the respondent No. 2, who vide letter No. DAO.MH. GADI.P-13/Has/1041 dated 20.9.2000, copy at ANNEX “D”, demanded relevant/ suppository documents regarding petitioner’s claim which were supplied but respondent No. 2 returned in original vide No. DAO.MH. GADI.H.M.1048 dated 3.10.200, copy at ANNEX “E”, with remarks that as petitioner was under Audit Control of respondent No. 1 at that time, therefore, petitioner may approach to District Accounts Officer Muzaffargarh. Contd. Page 3
-36.
That accordingly petitioner submitted his claim regarding grant of one annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988, before the respondent No. 1, who vide No. DAO/MG/ GAD/HM/181 dated 12.10.2000, copy of impugned order at ANNEX “F”, returned the case with remarks, which are reproduced as under: “Returned in original with remarks that it is intimated that annual increment on 1.12.1988 cannot be allowed on the basis of (option) refixation of pay as the benefit of pay is more than one increments of BPS-17”
7.
That refusal of respondent No. 1 to allow one annual increment on 1.12.1988 is clear cut violation of the Govt. of Punjab Finance Department Notification No. FD.PC-3-1/83 Pt-II dated 6.5.1986, copy at ANNEX “G” wherein it was decided that, where a post has been upgraded between 2nd June to 30th November of a Calendar Year, the increment of such a post should be allowed re-fixation of pay with reference to his national pay in the lower scale on 1st December of that year subject to the exercise of an option by the incumbent of the post.
8.
That Accountant General Punjab, vide letter No. PR (C)/ VOL-V, 83-87/HM/153 dated 3.4.1991, copy at ANNEX “H” declared that benefit of re-fixation of pay on the 1st December year is admissible only to those officers/officials whose promotion/up-gradation of post falls between 2nd June and 30the November of a Calendar year. The petitioner’s case is of identical nature, as petitioner’s post was up-graded with effect from 22.10.1988, therefore, petitioner stands entitled for the benefit of re-fixation of pay on 1st December 1988 after allowing one annual increment in BPS-17.
9.
That Mr. Asghar Ali Gorchani, Social Welfare Officer, Multan, was benefited from the outcome of above mentioned Notification dated 6.5.1986 (ANNEX “G”) and his annual Contd. Page 4
-4Revised Pay Fixation with Annual Increment had been finalized with effect from 1.12.1988. It is well-settled principle of law that person similarly situated be treated similarly. Further, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guaranteed equal protection of law but unfortunately, petitioner is being given discriminatory treatment by not allowing annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 in BPS17 and re-fixation of pay accordingly. 10.
That petitioner’s case is not barred by time as petitioner is suffering loss of one annual increment till to-date and it is continuous loss.
11.
That respondent No. 1 under legal obligation to refix the pay of Govt. servant on promotion/up-gradation. Refusal of respondent No. 1 to allow annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 is not a departmental order, therefore, petitioner cannot avail departmental remedy of appeal.
12.
That at present petitioner is serving in Hasil Pur form the last three months, but his L.P.C. is yet pending with respondent No. 2, therefore, petitioner could not get his salary since his transfer to Hasil Pur and is facing financial hardships. To over come financial crisis, last month, petitioner sold his motor cycle. Certainly L.P.C. will be issued by the respondent No. 2, once Issue of annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 and re-fixation of revised pay is solved by the respondent No. 1.
13.
That denial on the part of respondent No. 1, regarding annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 is ab-initio, void illegal and without lawful authority and based on malafide.
14.
That no alternate, speedy and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner except to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this petition. In view of the above respectful submissions, it is most humbly prayed that above-titled writ petition may very kindly be accepted, impugned order dated Contd. Page 5
-512.10.2000 (ANNEX “F”) passed by respondent No. 1 may graciously be declared ab-initio, void, illegal, without lawful authority and jurisdiction and may kindly be set aside. It is further prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to grant the petitioner one annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 in BPS-17 after up-gradation of post with effect from 22.10.1988, in view of Govt. of Punjab Finance Department Notification dated 6.5.1986 (ANNEX “G”) and revised pay fixation with annual increment may graciously be finalized with effect from 1.12.1988. Any other relief for which petitioner is entitled under the law and as per circumstances of the case, same may very kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the interest of justice. HUMBLE PETITIONER, Dated ___Jan’ 2001 (MALIK MUHAMMAD YOUNUS)
Through: Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocate High Court, 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
CERTIFICATE: Certified that as per instructions of our client, it is the first writ petition on the subject matter. Advocate Law Books: 1. 2.
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Estacode Punjab. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
W.P. No. ______________/2001
Malik Muhammad Younus
Vs.
D.I.O. Muzaffargarh, etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad Shafi, Social Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District Bahawalpur.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001
Malik Muhammad Younus
Vs.
D.I.O. Muzaffargarh, etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================
Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexures “A to H” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT, Dated: __________ (Malik Muhammad Younus) Through: Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocate High Court, 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001 Humayun Irshad etc
Vs.
Govt. of Punjab etc.
DISPENSATION APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad Shafi, Social Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District Bahawalpur.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
W.P. No.____________/2001 Humayun Irshad etc
Vs.
Govt. of Punjab etc.
INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS
ANNEXES PAGES
1
Urgent Form
2
Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3
Writ Petition.
4
Affidavit
5
Copy of Notification.
A
6
Copy of application dated 17.8.2000
B
7
Copy of application dated 9.9.2000
C
8
Copy of letter dated 20.9.2000
D
9
Copy of letter dated 3.10.2000
E
10
F
11
Copy of impugned order dated 12.10.2000 Copy of Notification dated 6.5.1986
G
12
Cop of letter dated 3.4.99.
H
13
Dispensation Application.
14
Affidavit.
15
Vakalatnama PETITIONER,
Dated: ____________ Through: Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocate High Court, 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
W.P. No. ____________/2001 Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad Shafi, Social Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District Bahawalpur. …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1.
The District Accounts Officer, Muzaffargarh.
2.
The District Accounts Officer, Multan.
3.
The Accountant General, Govt. of Punjab, Lahore. ……RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That brief facts leading to the instant writ petition are that in the year 1987, petitioner qualified Punjab Public Service examination and was appointed as Social Welfare officer in BPS-16, with effect from 12.1.1988 in the department of Social Welfare, Zakat & Ushar Department Govt. of Punjab. Accordingly petitioner was appointed as Social Welfare Officer and was posted to U.C.D. Project Teshil Ali Pur, District Muzaffargarh.
2.
That the Governor of Punjab vide Govt. of Punjab Social Welfare and Zakat Department Notification No. US (E)1028/83-VOL-II dated 28.11.1988, copy at ANNEX “A”, upgraded the post of Social Welfare Officer from Basic pay Contd. Page 2
-2scale 16 to BPS-17 with effect from 22.10.1988 subject to certain condition of educational qualifications, laid down in the aforesaid Notification. 3.
That as petitioner was eligible for the post of Social Welfare Officer in BPS-17 as per terms and conditions laid down in the Notification dated 28.11.1988 (ANNEX “A”), therefore, petitioner was appointed as Social Welfare Officer in BPS-17 (in upgraded post) with effect from 22.10.1988 at U.C.D. Project Tehsil Ali Pur District Muzaffargarh.
4.
That on 22.10.1988 petitioner’s basic pay in BPS-17 was fixed Rs. 2065/- per month. The annual increment to be awarded on 1.12.1988 was not allowed by respondent No. 1 despite the fact, petitioner was eligible for the said increment and from then, petitioner is suffering loss of one annual increment. On 29.3.89, petitioner was posted to R.C.D. Project Chak 5 Faiz, Multan and Last Pay Certificate (LPC) issued by the respondent No. 1 but annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 was lapsed in that LPC and that loss is still continuing.
5.
That in the year 2000, petitioner was qualifying for move-over in BPS-18, therefore, petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 through written application dated 17.8.2000, copy at ANNEX “B” for revision of pay after allowing one increment admissible on 1.12.1988 but no response was given. The Petitioner again submitted an other application dated 9.9.2000, copy at ANNEX “C” to the respondent No. 2, who vide letter No. DAO.MH. GADI.P-13/Has/1041 dated 20.9.2000, copy at ANNEX “D”, demanded relevant/ suppository documents regarding petitioner’s claim which were supplied but respondent No. 2 returned in original vide No. DAO.MH. GADI.H.M.1048 dated 3.10.200, copy at ANNEX “E”, with remarks that as petitioner was under Audit Control of respondent No. 1 at that time, therefore, petitioner may approach to District Accounts Officer Muzaffargarh. Contd. Page 3
-36.
That accordingly petitioner submitted his claim regarding grant of one annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988, before the respondent No. 1, who vide No. DAO/MG/ GAD/HM/181 dated 12.10.2000, copy of impugned order at ANNEX “F”, returned the case with remarks, which are reproduced as under: “Returned in original with remarks that it is intimated that annual increment on 1.12.1988 cannot be allowed on the basis of (option) refixation of pay as the benefit of pay is more than one increments of BPS-17”
7.
That refusal of respondent No. 1 to allow one annual increment on 1.12.1988 is clear cut violation of the Govt. of Punjab Finance Department Notification No. FD.PC-3-1/83 Pt-II dated 6.5.1986, copy at ANNEX “G” wherein it was decided that, where a post has been upgraded between 2nd June to 30th November of a Calendar Year, the increment of such a post should be allowed re-fixation of pay with reference to his national pay in the lower scale on 1st December of that year subject to the exercise of an option by the incumbent of the post.
8.
That Accountant General Punjab, vide letter No. PR (C)/ VOL-V, 83-87/HM/153 dated 3.4.1991, copy at ANNEX “H” declared that benefit of re-fixation of pay on the 1st December year is admissible only to those officers/officials whose promotion/up-gradation of post falls between 2nd June and 30the November of a Calendar year. The petitioner’s case is of identical nature, as petitioner’s post was up-graded with effect from 22.10.1988, therefore, petitioner stands entitled for the benefit of re-fixation of pay on 1st December 1988 after allowing one annual increment in BPS-17.
9.
That Mr. Asghar Ali Gorchani, Social Welfare Officer, Multan, was benefited from the outcome of above mentioned Notification dated 6.5.1986 (ANNEX “G”) and his annual Contd. Page 4
-4Revised Pay Fixation with Annual Increment had been finalized with effect from 1.12.1988. It is well-settled principle of law that person similarly situated be treated similarly. Further, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guaranteed equal protection of law but unfortunately, petitioner is being given discriminatory treatment by not allowing annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 in BPS17 and re-fixation of pay accordingly. 10.
That petitioner’s case is not barred by time as petitioner is suffering loss of one annual increment till to-date and it is continuous loss.
11.
That respondent No. 1 under legal obligation to refix the pay of Govt. servant on promotion/up-gradation. Refusal of respondent No. 1 to allow annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 is not a departmental order, therefore, petitioner cannot avail departmental remedy of appeal.
12.
That at present petitioner is serving in Hasil Pur form the last three months, but his L.P.C. is yet pending with respondent No. 2, therefore, petitioner could not get his salary since his transfer to Hasil Pur and is facing financial hardships. To over come financial crisis, last month, petitioner sold his motor cycle. Certainly L.P.C. will be issued by the respondent No. 2, once Issue of annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 and re-fixation of revised pay is solved by the respondent No. 1.
13.
That denial on the part of respondent No. 1, regarding annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 is ab-initio, void illegal and without lawful authority and based on malafide.
14.
That no alternate, speedy and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner except to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this petition. In view of the above respectful submissions, it is most humbly prayed that above-titled writ petition may very kindly be accepted, impugned order dated Contd. Page 5
-512.10.2000 (ANNEX “F”) passed by respondent No. 1 may graciously be declared ab-initio, void, illegal, without lawful authority and jurisdiction and may kindly be set aside. It is further prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to grant the petitioner one annual increment admissible on 1.12.1988 in BPS-17 after up-gradation of post with effect from 22.10.1988, in view of Govt. of Punjab Finance Department Notification dated 6.5.1986 (ANNEX “G”) and revised pay fixation with annual increment may graciously be finalized with effect from 1.12.1988. Any other relief for which petitioner is entitled under the law and as per circumstances of the case, same may very kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the interest of justice. HUMBLE PETITIONER, Dated ___Jan’ 2001 (MALIK MUHAMMAD YOUNUS)
Through: Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocate High Court, 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
CERTIFICATE: Certified that as per instructions of our client, it is the first writ petition on the subject matter. Advocate Law Books: 1. 2.
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Estacode Punjab. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
W.P. No. ______________/2001
Malik Muhammad Younus
Vs.
D.I.O. Muzaffargarh, etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad Shafi, Social Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District Bahawalpur.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001
Malik Muhammad Younus
Vs.
D.I.O. Muzaffargarh, etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================
Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexures “A to H” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT, Dated: __________ (Malik Muhammad Younus) Through: Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocate High Court, 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001 Humayun Irshad etc
Vs.
Govt. of Punjab etc.
DISPENSATION APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Malik Muhammad Younus S/o Malik Muhammad Shafi, Social Welfare Officer, Hasil Pur, District Bahawalpur.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
W.P. No.____________/2001 Humayun Irshad etc
Vs.
Govt. of Punjab etc.
INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS
ANNEXES PAGES
1
Urgent Form
2
Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3
Writ Petition.
4
Affidavit
5
Copy of Notification.
A
6
Copy of application dated 17.8.2000
B
7
Copy of application dated 9.9.2000
C
8
Copy of letter dated 20.9.2000
D
9
Copy of letter dated 3.10.2000
E
10
F
11
Copy of impugned order dated 12.10.2000 Copy of Notification dated 6.5.1986
G
12
Cop of letter dated 3.4.99.
H
13
Dispensation Application.
14
Affidavit.
15
Vakalatnama PETITIONER,
Dated: ____________ Through: Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocate High Court, 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
Related Documents
Muhammad Younus
November 2019 5
10 Younus Hood
November 2019 2
Younus (quran 10)
November 2019 3
Muhammad
December 2019 71
Muhammad
December 2019 89