According to this decision the daughter of Govt servant who dies during service or the employee is declared as invalidated or incapacitated for future service is entitled to the benefit of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules 1974. This decision was made by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan on 23-06-2011.

The Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules 1974 says;” Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule to the contrary, whenever a civil servant dies while in service or is declared as invalidated/incapacitated for further service and of his unemployed children, may be employed by the Appointing Authority against a post to be filled under Rule 16 & 17 for which he/she possesses the prescribed qualifications and experience and such child may be given 10 additional marks in the aggregate by the Public Service Commission or by the appropriate Selection Board or Committee, provided he/she qualifies in the test/examination and or/interview for posts in BPS-06 and above.”

“Provided further that one child of Government Servant who dies while in service or is declared as invalidated/incapacitated for further service shall be provided a job against posts in BPS-01 to BPS-05 in the department in which the deceased Govt Employee was working, without observance of formalities prescribed under the rules/procedure, provided such child is otherwise eligible for the post.”

According to the decision it is also clarified that there is no restriction of married or unmarried son/daughter. This special post has been delivered by Syed Mustansar.

Don't Miss: Assistant Package for the Family of a Deceased Contract Employee

Download the Full Decision of LHC Regarding Rule 17-A

The post Decision of LHC, Multan Bench Regarding Appointment of a Daughter of a Deceased Employee under Rule 17-A appeared first on Galaxy World.

According to the daily express Rahim Yar Khan dated 10^th October 2013, the Punjab Mohtsib has again ordered the Finance Department, Govt of Punjab to up-grade the clerical posts with immediate effect in the Punjab Government Departments and to submit a report upto 29^th October 2013 in this regard.

Punjab Mohtsib has already issued orders for the upgradation of clerical staff wef 1^st August 2008 in Punjab Govt Departments. The detail of this up-gradation is as under:

This post has been delivered by Malik Sajid.

The post Updates regarding Upgradation of Clerical Staff in Punjab Govt Departments appeared first on Galaxy World.

Government of the Punjab Finance Department already issued a Notification No.FD.PC-40-6-2007 dated 25^th April 2009 in connection with the benefit of premature increment/ re-fixation of pay to serving SSTs appointed against the 50 % in service quota. I will express the matter with detail regarding Premature Increment to SSTs and also the same to ESTs. 

The said matter was examined in pursuance orders of the Honorable Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 09.04.2008 in subject writ petition.

2.   As  per  method  of  recruitment  originally  prescribed  in  the  Punjab Education  Department  ( School  Education ) recruitment  rules ,1987, the  post of secondary school teacher was required to be filled in 100% by initial recruitment subsequently, amendment was  made  in the service rules on 27.07.1991 according to which the post of SST was to be filled in as under:

“By initial recruitment, provided that 50 % post shall be filled from amongst   in service teachers possessing   prescribed   qualifications

For initial recruitment for the post of secondary school teacher”

3-  The   above  service  rules  were  further  amended  on  25-05-1983 according to which the post of SST was to be filled in as under:

(a)  50 %  of  the  post  shall  be  filled  in by initial recruitment  provided Further that:

(i)   75% from amongst the science graduates for appointment in the subjects of Mathematics, Science & Biology.

(ii)    25% from amongst graduates in Arts subjects.

(b)   50 %  posts  shall  be  filled  amongst  in service  teachers  possessing Prescribed qualifications   for   initial   recruitment   for  the  post of secondary school teacher provided that:

(i)    85  %  of  the   posts  shall  be   allocated  for  teachers  in  Arts subjects.

(ii)   15 % of the posts shall be allocated for teacher of Mathematics, Science & Biology, if none is available then from the in teacher in Arts subjects.                  4-  The rule ibid were further amended on 24.12.2008 according to which the post Secondary School Teacher is to be filled as under:-

(i)    50% of the post shall be filled in by initial recruitment provided further that:

(a)   75 % from amongst the science graduates (having the B.Sc qualification   with   three elective   subjects out of   (A) Mathematics (B) Physics, Chemistry, Botany, &Zoology.

(b)  25% from amongst graduates in Arts subjects.

(ii)   50  %  posts   shall  b e filled  in   by   promotion   from  amongst Elementary School Teacher (General, Technical, Agri, vernacular Arabic  Oriental,  Drawing,  Physical  Education, English) having prescribed  qualification  as  mentioned  in  column  No.  6 on the basis of  length of service  from the date of regular appointment in the respective District provided further that:-

(i)   75 % posts shall be allocated for teacher in Arts subject. 25  %  of  the  posts  shall  be allocated  Science Graduates (having  the  B.Sc qualification with three elective subjects out of (A) Mathematics (B) Physics, Chemistry, Botany, &Zoology.

5-  It  has been decided that the benefit of premature increment/ re-fixation of pay  may  be extended only those serving Secondary  School  Teachers appointed against the 50 %  in service quota from the date of appointment as Secondary School Teachers  whose  cases are at par with Mr Zaka Ullah and they were appointed on or after 27.07.1991,the date when service rules were amended .

Important Question regarding Premature Increment to ESTs

If SSTs can get the benefit of premature increment/ re-fixation of pay then why not PSTs appointed as ESTs, having the same situation, can get this benefit? To answer these questions please comment below. You also can get the help from the Recruitment/Service Rules of the Punjab Government Education Department. (This post has been delivered by Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Sial).

The post Premature Increment to SSTs Appointed Against 50 % in Service Quota appeared first on Galaxy World.

Govt of the Punjab School Education Department has issued orders No. SO(SE-III)7-241/2013 dated 5^th November 2013 in connection with the matter of Advance Increments & M.Phil Allowance to Graduate English Teachers. The detail is as under: 

1. The    W. P    NO. 11269/3013 filed by Mr. Muhammad Shabbir, EST (English) Govt Elementary School lshaq Wala Muzaffargarh  and 04 others was disposed of by the honourable Lahore High Court;  Multan Bench; Multan with the direction to the respondent NO.1;  Secretary School Education to decide petitioners case in the light of judgment rendered by this court in writ petition NO.8395OF2012.
2. The operation paragraph of judgment dated 07.11.2012 passed in with petition NO.8395/2012 is produced as under:“It  is an establish principle of law that once an Appex court decides some point of law that is applicable on all similarly placed persons. The respondents are not denying this fact but their defence is that the petitioner is hit by article 212 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The argument of learned assistant advocate general; Punjab is of no use. As the petitioners are claiming the benefit of judgment of the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan as they are on similarly placed position like the appellants of judgment passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. In view of the above,  this petition is allowed and the petitioner case is declared at per with the case of the appellants of judgment passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal dated 04.10.2010.”
3. The judgment dated 04.10.2010 passed in appeal  NO.1545/2010 is produced as under:                                                                                                             “The perusal of above noted notification issued by the govt. of Punjab Finance Department on 07.07.2007 leaves no room for doubt that despite discontinuity of the above noted concession/grant of increment w.e.f 01.12.2001;  all those officer/officials who had acquired higher qualification prior to 01.12.2001 were already entitled to get the benefit of advance increments if otherwise eligible under the policy; meaning there by that the relevant date for acquiring higher education during service for getting the relief under 1983 notification was that the same should have been acquired prior to 01.12.2001; therefore were entitled to claim benefit of para-15 (iii) of notification dated 25.08.1983. Resultantly all these appeals are allowed and the appellant are declared eligible for grant of increments under notification dated 25.08.1983 provided they have earlier not availed the said concession in respect thereto .”
4. The judgment dated 07.11.2012 passed in writ petition NO. 8395/2012 upheld by the  honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 07.03.2013 was submitted to the Finance Department for necessary advise the department to implement the judgment to the extent of petitioners only.  Accordingly the petitioners in writ petition No. 8395/2012 were allowed advance increments on acquiring higher qualification of M.A, M.Ed etc.
5.    In compliance to the court’s order following steps were taken:-

a). The  petitioners were afforded personal hearing and heard at length in the presence of Mr. Riaz Hussain Qureshi, litigation officer O/O EDO (Edu) Muzaffargarh;

            b). The available record was perused and following facts are observed:-                  i.  The Graduate English Teachers were recruited on contract basis in the year 1995 & 1997 and regularized vide letter No. SO(SE-IV)2-31/2004 dated 31.12.2004;                                                                                                                                                      ii  As per Notification No.FD;PC.2-1/83 dated 25.08.1983 issued y the Finance Department, PSTs, ESTs, ATS and SSTs were entitled  for advance increments. The Graduate English Teachers did not come under the purview of said Notification. However, vide notification N. SO(CONFDL:S) 1-13/90 dated  26-6-90 advance increments sanctioned by the Finance Department in para 15 of their notification No.FD.PC.2-1/83  dated 25.08.1983 were stopped.

         iii.   The Govt of the Punjab, Finance Department vide letter dated 03-11-2004 advised the Accountant General , Punjab that teachers who could not avail the benefit prior to 01-12-2001  due to any reason are not entitled for advance increment at this stage.

       iv. Prior to appointment and regularization of Graduate English Teachers, Finance Department vide letter No. FD.PR.12-5/84 (PT.II) dated 03-11-2004 had already stopped advance incements on attaining higher qualification.

       v.  The Govt of the Punjab, School Education department  vide notification No.SO(SE-III) 2-16/2007 dated 24-9-2007 approved higher  qualification allowance for Elementary School Teachers on acquiring higher qualification of M.A/M.Sc; and

     vi. The ESTs (English) are entitled for M.Phil Allowance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month vide notification No.FD.SR-1/9-21/2011 dated 01-4-2013.

6.  The Department vide letter No. SO(SER-II) 7-241/2013 dated 31-10-2013 has requested the Finance Department to issued necessary advice on the judgment dated 23-09-2013 passed in write petition No.112369/2013.

7.  In view of the above, I, Secretary School Education hereby dispose of the petition of petitioners, Mr. Muhammad Shabbir , EST (English) Govt. Elementary School Ishaq  Wala Muzaffargarh and 04 others, subject to advice issued by the Finance Department.

The post Advance Increments & M.Phil Allowance to Graduate English Teachers appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore has given its decision on 28^th October 2013 in connection with the Up-Gradation of Deputy Accountants from BPS-14 to BPS-16. The comparative chart of the Federal Govt Employees and their counterparts in the Provincial Govt given in the grounds of appeals is as under:

The appellants possess the similar qualifications, nature of the duties performed are similar, work under the same roof and same officer. Similarly placed are to be treated similarly. No doubt the Punjab Govt works independently under the constitution but generally it follows the pay scales sanctioned by the Federal Govt.If two different pay scales are given to the Federal Govt Employees and the Provincial Govt Employees it may amount to extracting labour and exploitation under Article-3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I tend to agree with the judgment of Lahore High Court 2004 PLC (CS) 586 that it is violation of the Article 2-A, 3, 25, 37 and 38 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

As far as the other two contentions of the respondents that the service structure will be affected and Govt of the Punjab will have to bear extra financial burden of Rs. 46.44 million, suffice to say that the service structure and financial constrains cannot stand in the way of Constitution. According to the chart placed on record by the appellants, respondent Provincial Govt will have to bear extra burden of Rs. 209,370/- whereas as per calculation of the respondent Finance Department the financial impact would be Rs. 46.44 million. This tribunal has no expertise in accounts that is not a big loss for the Provincial Govt. The law has to prevail. The up-gradations have already been made in Education Department, Police Department,, Excise & Taxation Department, Jail Department etc, there seems no reason that up-gradation should not be granted to the appellants.

In view of the above matter, all the appeals are accepted; impugned order dated 26-07-2012 is set aside. The appellants are declared to be entitled BPS-16.The Secretary Finance Department Punjab is directed to pass necessary orders in the light of the observations made above in order to remove the disparity/discrimination.

This Post has been delivered by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Ch.

Don't Forget: Up-Gradation of FGEIs Accountants

Download Upgradation of Deputy Accountants Full Copy of the Decision in PDF

The post Up-Gradation of Deputy Accountants from BPS-14 to BPS-16-Decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Lahore High Court Lahore issued orders regarding Suspension Transfer Orders of DTEs on 5^th December 2013. Detail is as under:

It is a connected matter with W.P No. 29387/2012 pending adjudication before court for 17-12-2003. Propriety demands that this petition may also heard along with the aforementioned writ petition.

2-         Issue notice to the respondents for 17-12-2013 to file report and para wise comments on or before the next date of hearing.

C.M No. 1 of 2013

Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. C.M stands disposed of.

C.M No. 2 of 2013

Subject to notice for the above said date, in the meanwhile, operation for the impugned order dated 29-11-2013 is suspended until the next date of hearing. However it is clarified that interim relief shall not continue, if the same is not expressly extended at the next date of hearing. Copy DASTI.

A post delivered by Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Sajid.

Don't Forget: Appointment of Daughter of a Deceased Employee LHC Orders

The post Orders of LHC Lahore Regarding Suspension Transfer Orders of DTEs appeared first on Galaxy World.

The High Court of Sindh at Karachi has given its decision on 24-09-2013 regarding the selection of Headmaster/Headmistress BPS-17 against 207 vacant posts in Sindh Education & Literacy Department Sindh. Some of the points of this decision are as under while the full detail of this decision is available in the attached pictures.

Succinctly, the facts set out in the aforesaid petitioners except C.P No. D-2523/2013, are that on the requisition of Sindh Education & Literacy Department Sindh, respondent No.2 invited applications vide publication dated 17-10-2009, for the selection of Headmaster/Headmistress BPS-17 against 207 vacant posts. Petitioners participated in the written examination but were declared unsuccessful candidates. Petitioners claim that private respondents are ineligible persons on account of criteria as elaborated in the advertisement, which was based on qualification, cadre, and experience. It is further asserted that condition of 3 years service as HST and minimum qualification of M.A & B.Ed was mandatory, thus designation of HST is provided only in the Government Schools and not in private schools or colleges, in spite of that SPSC/respondent No.2 has recommended many private school teachers, hence such recommendations is unjustified and illegal.  It is also urged that the private respondents managed false certificates from private schools and succeeded in the said exam. The scrutiny of the documents was not conducted before the written test; same is totally against appointment procedure and has created room for ineligible candidates. Therefore the recommendation of private respondents is null and void and further seeks direction to take legal action against the persons who are responsible for above mistake.

Significant to record here that it is a matter of great concern that recent political influence in matter (s) of appointment (s) of Teacher (s) caused a serious damage to our education system and introduction of respondent 2 (SPSC) into such appointment procedure also shows concern of the quarter concerned. Therefore we direct the Education & Literacy Department that it shall ensure that selection/appointment against vacant posts out of such recommended/successful candidates shall be purely on merit basis so that beginning is made for improving the Government schools education standard and, the petitioner (s) who claims the recruitment process as illegal may raise question of disqualification of recommended candidates before quarter concern which shall examine the qualification and eligibility of successful candidate (s) without any influence and if, at any stage any one is found to be not qualified and eligible then he/she be declared so. The eligibility/test shall also include determination of question of genuineness of the certificate and degree etc. Needless to say that any step initiated in such proceeding shall be after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

The instant petitions are dismissed with above observations.

The summary of this decision is that:

Some private school teachers applied for the job & they passed the written test & interview & declared passed/selected by the SPSC. But some failure candidates went to court that in job addqualification M.A + B.Ed & 3 years teaching experience as HST,  was mentioned. HST=High School Teacher is a govt teacher so only they are eligible & private school teachers are not eligible for HM post.

This post has been delivered by "Dawn of Peace".

Don't Forget: Suspension of Transfer Orders of DTEs by LHC

The post Selection of Headmaster/Headmistress BPS-17 against 207 Vacant Posts in Sindh Education & Literacy Department Sindh-Decision of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Punjab Mohtsib has given its decision on 12-12-2013 in connection with the Upgradation of Computer Operator from BPS-12 to BPS-16 in Punjab with immediate effect.

Complaint

M/s Yasir Manzoor and Nazia Perveen both the Computer Operator BPS-12 O/o District Officer, Agriculture, Water Management Nankana, seek a direction to Agriculture Department to upgrade the post of Computer Operator BPS-12 to BPS-16 on the analogy of upgradation of various posts and that too the Honourable Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in judgment dated 19-06-2013.announced in W.P.No.428-P of 2012have accepted the W.P of the Computer Operator BPS-12 of KPK Govt. and directed the KPK Govt (Respondent) to upgrade the posts of Computer Operators to BPS-16 with immediate effect.

Findings Regarding Upgradation of Computer Operators

The Agriculture Department is directed to prepare the case for upgradation of the Post of Computer Operator BPS-12 to BPS-16 and submit that to the Finance Department and the S&GAD with recommendations of upgradation with compliance report to be submitted to this office within one month of issue of this order as required under Section 11(2) of the Punjab O/o Ombudsman Act 1977.

This post has been delivered by Mr. Awais Freed.

The post Upgradation of Computer Operator in Punjab-Decision of Punjab Mohtsib appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Punjab Mohtsib has given its decision on 21-01-2014 in connection with the demand for Grant of Pay Scale Instead of Fixed Pay Package to the MEAs on Analogy of other Contract Employees of School Education Department. The detail of this decision is as under:

Complaint

Mr. Munir Ahmed and other two Monitoring Evaluation Assistants (MEAs) (contract appointees) of the Chief Minister Monitoring Force (Education Department) stated that despite their service form 2004, their fixed Pay Package was not appropriately revised, dearness increases of 2009, 2010 were not allowed and they were not allowed corresponding pay scales, as against the fact that the other contract appointees of the Education Department were awarded corresponding pay scales, in replacement of their fixed pay package. They seek a direction to the Education and Finance Departments to revise their pay package, grant them Pay Scales and remove discrimination, as well as, the MEAs in various Districts of the Punjab were. in receipt or higher rate of pay that may be examined and that rate of pay be allowed to them at Lahore.

Report of the Agency

2. The A.G. Punjab vide report dated 09.10.2013 stated that the complainants were allowed the fixed pay package as per the School Education Department order dated 29.02.20 12. The School Education Department vide report dated 26.01 .2013 stated that fixed pay package was lastly enhanced on 29.02.2012, whereby the Adhoc Relief/Dearness Allowance ie 20% (2009) and 50% (2010) were not admissible. However, in some Districts, the MEAs succeeded to get those increases from the DAOs and their pay was un-authorizedly increased, which was accordingly remedied.

4. In their further report dated 04.12.2013, the School Educational Department interalia, reported that fixed pay package of MEAs was increased by 35%.

Joint Hearing

5. Joint hearing were held on 06.11.2013 and 26.11.2013. Surprisingly both parties repeated the same arguments. The aggrieved employees reiterated that it was clear case of discrimination and exploitation of weaker and poor helpless segment of the employees. A delegation of these employees was also present during joint hearing.

Proceedings

6. Mr. Umar Atta Bandial Honourable Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No.124/88/2011 field by Rana Ishfaq Ahmed. etc. MEAs vide order dated 13.09.2011 asked the Secretary Education (Schools) and the' Secretary (Finance) to consider the petition of the petitioners for enhancement of pay as it was allowed to the other staff members in the same project, as well as, to pay their emoluments in accordance with the scales as granted to other staff members, pursuant to letter dated 28.04.2008. Needful was directed to be done within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order dated 13.09.2011.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the Respondents, the petitioner (lshfaq Ahmed) moved contempt petition Crl. Org. 495/2012 in W.P. No.124/M8/2011 which was disposed or by the Honourable Lahore High Court vide order dated 17.05.2012, that the petitioners were aggrieved of the conclusion and result of the impugned order whether the same arrived at a right or wrong conclusion is a matter of substance which is not liable to challenge in the contempt jurisdiction of the Court. By passing the impugned order the direction of the Court stands complied. The petitioners, if so inclined, avail their remedies against the impugned order in accordance with law.

Findings

8. It is a fact that the various categories of the contract employees of the Chief Minister's Monitoring Force, Education Department, Government of the Punjab were allowed pay scales against the fixed pay package with immediate effect vide the Education Department order No. DD(M)8-34/04, dated 28.04.2008, The complainants were also the contract employees of the project of the School Education Department and were entitled to the same treatment as was extended to other employees vide order dated 28.04.2008. There were no solid reasons to refute the demand of the petitioners.

9. The record and performance of these monitoring teams was also examined. It was an admitted fact that the complainants required performance was not less than others. They were qualified for the job and their reported output was outstanding. Based on these reports they stood entitled to the same treatment as was given to others. Non implementation of the same treatment will be maladministration and discrimination as defined under the Ombudsman Act, 1997.

10. The Secretary, School Education Department and the Secretary Finance Department are directed to allow pay scales to the complainant including all those MEAs similarly placed and circumstanced and report compliance to this office within one month from issue of this order as required under Section 11(2) of the O/o Ombudsman Act, 1997.

Special Thanks to Alee Gee for providing the decision copy of this case.

The post Demand for Grant of Pay Scale Instead of Fixed Pay Package to the MEAs appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No.II, Multan has given its decision on 23^rd December 2013 in connection with the Regularization of Computer Operators in Irrigation Department. The detail of this decision is as under:

Some Facts of the Judgment

All the appeals are being decided by common judgment as common question of law and facts arc involved in all these appeals. The appellants have filed above titled appeals before this Tribunal against judgment dated 06-07-2013 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur whereby Learned Presiding Officer dismissed the grievances petitions of the appellants.

The brief facts of the instant appeals are that appellants were appointed as computer operators against vacant and permanent posts and they performed their duties to the entire satisfaction of the respondent-department. The appellants have been working without any break or gap. Salary of the appellants was paid without any weekly deduction or for other gazetted holidays. Each appellant have service record of more than 9 months. The respondent department where the respondents were appointed is permanent institution. So, the appellants had attained the status of permanent worker/workman. The appellants requested several times to Authority for regularization of their service but all in vain. They had not been regularized by the Authority malafidely despite repeated demands.

After grievance notice upon respondent-department, the appellants filed grievance petitions before Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur. It was alleged in the grievance petitions that they are working for the last several years as computer operators against vacant and permanent posts; appellants worked satisfactorily and honestly and their period of service was extended from time to time. The appellants possess unblemished career of service and they have attained the status of permanent workmen. It was alleged in the grievance petitions that appellants requested several time to competent authority of respondent-department for regularization of service of the appellants but all in vain, the appellants prayed for regularization of their service and claimed all the benefits of regular employee. The respondent-department filed written statement and raised preliminary objections that their recruitment was on daily wages basis and purely on temporary basis. On facts, in the written statement all the facts of grievance petition were denied.

Learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of both the parties. All the respondents/petitioners appeared as Pw-l in their respective grievance petition and supported his version as set out in the grievance petition. Respondents/petitioners have brought on the record documents Ex. P.I to Ex. P.14. On behalf of respondent-department Rw-l Mian Muhammad Masood Executive Engineer, Ahmedpur (East) appeared and admitted that respondents/ petitioners have been serving as Computer Operators with the respondent-department from different dates and these dates pertain to different years definitely beyond a period of nine months. He further admitted that respondents/ petitioners are regularly receiving salary and different letters were issued by the respondent.

Concluding Para of the Judgment dated 06.07.2013

The concluding Para of the judgment dated 06.07.2013 is reproduced below:-

"The unambiguous factual and legal position which emerges out to float on the surface of record before this Court is that the petitioners have not attained the status of permanent employees and cannot be declared so, as prayed by them, therefore all these grievance petitions are dismissed".

Summary of the Decision

In view of the above discussion, all the above titled appeals filed by appellants are hereby allowed and judgment dated 06.07.2013 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur is hereby set aside. The respondent-department is directed to reinstate: the appellants in service as Computer Operators considering them regular/permanent workmen with immediate effect. No order as to costs.

Full detail of the decision is available at the copy of the decision. This post has been delivered by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Gojjer.

The post The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Decision Regarding Regularization of Computer Operators in Irrigation Department appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench has given its decision in connection with the promotion w.e.f date of DPC instead of Date of vacant post or from the date an employee becomes eligible for promotion. Detail of the same is as under:

Brief Facts of the Appeal

The brief facts of this appeal are that the appellant joined the respondent department as KPO BPS-09 on 08-04-1984. He along with others in the appeals filed writ petition before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench for being treated as par with KPOs recruited in 2000 who were given BPS-10. Their writ petition succeeded before the honourable court and consequently the post was upgraded wef 26-06-2000 vide order dated 17-05-2007. The appellant was further promoted along with 7 other KPOs to the rank of Data Coder in BPS-12 on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 20-08-2007. And the impugned order was passed on 24-08-2008. The appellant however felt aggrieved and filed departmental promotion to 2003 i.e when he had completed 3 years of qualifying service to become eligible for promotion to the next grade i.e BPS-12 in accordance with the recruitment rules.

Findings

We have however certain reservations. Firstly, there is no rule which makes it obligatory upon the respondents to fill vacant posts either from the date a vacancy has occurred or when employees become eligible for promotion. The contention that the appellant had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and therefore he should be promoted does not persuade us. Even otherwise DPCs are not held immediately on the occurrence of a vacancy nor has any rule been cited which makes it mandatory for the respondents to fill the posts from that day. Such meetings are generally convened at regular intervals and the recommendations take effect from the date the minutes are approved by the competent authority and not from the date when the vacancy had occurred.  It is not denied that the posts had remained vacant at all during the pendency of the writ petition. There would be substance in the argument if the respondents had made promotion of the other officials in the meantime. Therefore under these circumstances, we find that the respondents have not committed any illegality by promoting the appellant with immediate effect.

Decision

For the reasons discussed hereinabove we don’t find much force in the appeal and consequently it is dismissed as being devoid of merit. This post has been delivered by Mr. Zafar Ali.

The post Promotion w.e.f Date of Vacant Post or Date of DPC-LHC Rawalpindi Bench Decision appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Islamabad High Court has again issued the orders on 4^th February 2014 in connection with the 20% Special Relief Allowance 2013 to all the Federal Govt Employees and the deadline has been given till 28-02-2014. Some points of this decision are as under:

Official in attendant submit that the summary with regard to Special Allowance @ 20% was submitted to the Honourable Prime Minister for approval and there were certain quarries, however after answering the same summary has been again submitted to the Honourable PM for taking final decision about the matter. Further submit that they are not in position to tell any specific date for the approval of the summary, however showed their expectance that the same will be returned within three weeks. Officials in attendant are directed to submit follow up letter in terms of order passed by this court so that this issue may be settled as the employees of different departments are lurking in the arena of uncertainty since long and approaching the court time and again. It is expected that the authority shall take the final decision by the end of this month i.e 28-02-2014.

In view of the matter, it is held that all the Federal Govt Employees and the employees of other allied departments are equally entitled to 20% special allowance which has been given to the employees mentioned in the Notification.

This post has been delivered by Mr. Azmat Ullah Yousufzai, Administration Directorate Main Office, National University of Science and Technology (NUST).

The post Decision Copy February 2014 of 20% Special Relief Allowance for All FG Employees appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi has given its decision on 19-02-2014 in connection with the Grant of Special Pay Equivalent to Three Times of Basic Pay  & Utility Allowance with effect from 01-03-2010 to the Employees of Special Courts performing their duties in connection with administration of justice under the administrative control of Ministry of Law & Justice Division, Islamabad. The detail of this decision is as under:

• Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners employees of Special Courts performing their duties in connection with administration of justice under the administrative control of Ministry of Law & Justice Division, Islamabad pray for giving effect to the recommendations of National Judicial Policy Making Committee and grant them the Special Pay equivalent to three times of the Basic Pay, Utility Allowance wef 01-03-2010as has been done in case of the other judicial officers and staff of the district judiciary, members of the staff of the Federal Courts, the Courts subordinate to the Sindh High Court, Karachi and the Tribunals in the light of the judgment dated 31-10-2012, passed in writ petition No. 20968 of 2009 by this court.
• Learned Council for petitioners relying on the judgment dated 31-10-2012, referred to above and the judgment dated 21-03-2013, passed in writ petition No. 536/2013 by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, contends that the petitioners contemporaries performing their duties under the Ministry of Law and Justice Division and serving in the Courts subordinate to Sindh High Court, Karachi and Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, have already been granted the relief prayed for in this petition. The same relief cannot be withheld in case of the petitioners; that the judgments passed in above referred cases, are in fact, the judgments in rem and confer same rights to the petitioners and all the other performing similar duties under the Special Courts.
• The petition is opposed by the Learned AAG and Standing Counsel. It is contended that the judgments, referred to above, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not judgments in rem. The same confer the prayed relief to those only who had come forward to seek the relief, contends that an I.C.A has already been filed in LHC, Lahore against the judgment dated 31-10-2012. They, however, concede that no injunctive order has been passed therein. They request that till the decision of the said I.C.A, this petition may be kept pending; that acceptance of this appeal will open a Pandora’s Box and will be a sever slash on the National Exchequer.
• Heard. Record perused.
• The contemporaries of the petitioners who had filed writ petition No. 20968/2009, at the Principal Seat of this Court, have vide judgment dated 31-10-2012, been granted the relief, as is prayed for in this petition. The same was the outcome of Writ Petition No. 536 of 2013, filed in IHC, Islamabad, which culminated in the judgment dated 21-03-2013. The judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 20968/2009 is a judgment in rem and the benefits conferred upon those petitioners should have also been extended to the present petitioners. There is no reason to refuse the instant petitioners the relief they are entitled to have. Mere pendency of an I.C.A does not put a legal restraint on this Court to adjudicate upon this petition. In these circumstances, relying upon the dictum laid down in the supra judgments, this petition is accepted. The petitioners are held entitled to the relief prayed for in terms of the judgment dated 31-10-2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 20968/2009 from the same date.

This post has been delivered by Mr. Mudaser Saqib.

The post Grant of Special Pay Equivalent to Three Times of Basic Pay & Utility Allowance to the Employees of Special Courts-Decision of the LHC Rawalpindi Bench appeared first on Galaxy World.

Govt of the Punjab, Services & General Administration Department (Regulation Wing), Lahore has already issued letter No. SOR-III(S&GAD) 3-12/2008 dated 12^th November 2008 & 30^th January 2009 in connection with the Appointment under Rule 17-A of Children or Widow of an Employee who dies During Service or Invalidated for further Service. The detail of the same is as under:

• Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974 provides that whenever a civil servant dies during service or is declared as invalidated/incapacitated for further service one of his unemployed children or his widow/wife may be employed by Appointing Authority against a post to be filled under 16 and 17 for which he/she possesses the prescribed qualification and experience and such child or widow/wife may be given 10 additional marks in the aggregate by the Public Service Commission or by the Appropriate Selection Board or Committee provided otherwise he/she qualifies in the test/exam and or interview of posts and BPS-6 and above.

Provided further that one child or widow/wife of a Government servant who dies in service or declared as invalidated/incapacitated for further service may be provided a job against posts in BPS-01 to BPS-05 and the post of Junior Clerk (BPS-07) in the department in which the deceased employee was working without observation of formalities prescribed under the rules/procedure.

• Section 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Acts 1974 provides that appointments to a civil service of the province or to a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province shall be made in the prescribed manner.
• The above provisions of the Act and the Rules do not specify that initial appointment/recruitment should be made on regular or contract basis. Therefore appointments to posts reserved for initial appointment can be made either on contract or regular basis as per requirement of the Government.
• The Government however generally shifted from regular to contract mode of appointment and issued a comprehensive Contract Appointment Policy 2004. The facility of appointment under Rule 17-A has been extended to the children/widow/wife of civil servants who dies during service or is declared as invalidated/incapacitated for further service while in service through the Contract Appointment Policy 2004 so that such candidates or not deprived of job against the posts which are being filled on contract basis.
• The Government has constituted a Contract Appointment Regulation Committee (CARC) to determine the categories of posts which can be filled on contract or regular basis. The recommendation of CARC with regard to declaring a post to be filled on contract or regular basis is then submitted for approval of the Chief Minister. The departments then may make recruitment accordingly.
• The Regulation Wing vide circular dated 05-08-2006 made an amendment in the Contract Appointment Policy 2004 envisaging that the provision of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974 and the relevant instructions/guidelines issued in this behalf from time to time shall be applicable mutates mutandis for employment of one of the unemployed children, wife/widow of a civil servant dies during service or is declared as invalidated/incapacitated for further service under the policy.

The nature of the employment so provided shall be dependent on the mode of recruitment viz. contract or regular as may be decided by the Government in respect of a particular post.

              This post has been delivered by APD Warble Fly Control Dera Ghazi Khan.

The post Appointment under Rule 17-A Whether Regular or On Contract Basis? appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Islamabad High Court on 28-02-2014 has given its decision regarding the Regularization of Contract/Honorary Paid Employees of the FGEI (C/G) Directorate.  The detail of this decision is as under:

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are contract employees of the Federal Govt Educational Institutions (Cantt/Garrison) Directorate. They have been working on their respective posts for the last more than eight years. In 2013, Federal Govt decided to regularize the employees on the basis of policy/criteria for regularization. According to the said policy names of the employees were sent to the Cabinet Sub Committee and the committee had to decide about the regularization of employees. Admittedly the names of the petitioners were sent to the committee and committee had approved their names for regularization of their services, but they were not regularized. The petitioners therefore filed the present writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the respondents admitted the facts regarding regularization of the petitioners by the Cabinet Sub Committee; it was however added that the total number of employees who were to be regularized, were 1237. For regularization of those employees finances were involved and therefore the Cabinet Sub Committee had also directed that the Finance Division will provide additional posts to the Ministry of Defence for regularization of said 1237 contract/daily wages employees of FGEIs (C/G) Directorate. For the said purpose, the Cabinet Sub Committee had ordered for creation of 210 posts of Lectures Colleges (BPS-17), 820 posts of TGTs (BPS-16), 110 posts of TUGTs (BPS-14), 60 posts of MTTs (BPS-09) and 37 posts of ministerial staff.  It is further submitted that the respondents have no objection on the regularization of the petitioner’s services, if their names were approved by the Cabinet Sub Committee. However up till now the Finance Division has not been able to create these posts. As soon as the posts are created the petitioners shall be regularized.

Learned Deputy Attorney General also adopted arguments, advanced by learned counsel for the respondents.

After hearing leaned counsel for the respondents, instant writ petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to check names of the petitioners and if their names were approved by the Cabinet Sub Committee, then the case of their regularization be expedited. However till the completion of the process no adverse orders shall be passed against the petitioners, whose names had been approved by the Cabinet Sub Committee, in respect of their services/regularization.

This post has been delivered by Syed Asadullah.

The post Regularization of Contract/Honorary Paid Employees of the FGEI (C/G) Directorate-Decision of IHC appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Peshawar High Court Peshawar has given its decision on 06-03-214 in connection with Service Structure Issue of NADRA Employees. Some salient points of this decision are as under and the full detail is available at the copy of the decision.

In this WP No. 3210/212, the petitioners have asked the following prayers:

It is therefore most humbly requested that on acceptance of this writ petition, the august Court is requested to declare that:-

The new service structure dated 06-03-2012 as without lawful authority, unconstitutional, violation of Article 4, 25 and 27 of the Constitution, violation of decision made in meeting dated 22-2-212 discriminatory and disadvantageous to the service career of the petitioners, therefore the same may be set aside.

The respondents may be directed to restore the name, designation as Deputy Director with BPS-18 with all consequential benefits.

Any other remedy which is not specifically prayed for that may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners.

Precisely sated facts as averred in the petition  are that the petitioners joined NADRA as Assistant Manager/System Engineer in SPS-0-6 which is equivalent to Basic Pay Scale BPS-17: thus the petitioners were later on promoted on different dates to the post of Deputy Manager in SPS-0-07 which is equivalent to BPS-18; that all the employees of NADRA were regularized vide Notification dated 17-10-2011 with immediate effect; that recently the post of Deputy Manager was re-designated as Deputy Director and was placed in BPS-18 which was followed by Notification issued by NADRA on 23-02-2012. Likewise the Provincial Headquarter also issued the same re-designations on 28-2-2012. However on 6-3-2012 a new service structure and BPS was issued which was totally in violation of decision taken in meeting held on 22-3-2012 which resulted into demotion of the petitioners to BPS-17 while they were already working in BPS-18 (SPS-0-7) and their previous service was taken as BPS-16 while they were inducted into service in BPS-17. Consequently their salaries adjustment was also not done according to BPS-18 but it was according to BPS-16 & BPS-17 which adversely affected the petitioner’s ‘service career’ compelling them to knock the doors of this court by filing instant petitions for the redressal of their grievances.

In view of the above discussion, we by allowing both the petitioners, set aside the impugned Notification No. NADRA/HR/Regulations/27 dated 6^th March 2012 to the extent of equivalency table and direct the respondents to re-designate their pay scale as mentioned in the Notification No. F&A/NADRA/HQ/2002-2003 with all consequential benefits by treating their original appointments of 0-6 in BPS-17, as discussed earlier.

This post has been delivered by Sanya Memon.

The post Service Structure Issue of NADRA Employees- Peshawar High Court Peshawar Decision appeared first on Galaxy World.

Decision Copy of the Lahore High Court Lahore Regarding GAT has been published here for the info of the needy ones. Lahore High Court Lahore has given its decision on 23-01-2014 in this regard. Some details are as under. Full details can be read on the document attached.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a student who has passed her M.Phil (Chemistry) in the academic session 2009 - 2011 from GovernmentCollegeUniversity, Lahore. In order to pursue her Ph.D in Chemistry she applied for admission and was required to pass Graduate Assessment Test (“GAT – Subject”) conducted by the National Testing Service, (“NTS”) apparently working under the authority of the Higher Education Commission (“HEC”). The grievance of the petitioner was restricted to the marks awarded to her in the GAT by NTS and during the course of hearing this grievance was redressed.

2. Prior to the redressal of this grievance, an important legal question surfaced during the course of the proceedings regarding the legal status and authority of NTS under the law.

3. Vide order dated 11.10.2013 the following questions of public importance were identified in this case:-

i. What is the nature and scope of a “testing body” envisaged in Section 10 (1) (n) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 (“Ordinance”)?

ii. What is the nature and scope of service to be rendered by the said testing body?

iii. What is the scholastic capacity required of such a testing body?

iv. Can HEC regulate any such body under the Ordinance?

v. Should there be one testing body or more?

vi. What should be the legal status of the entity constituting the testing body?

4. Through the same order notices were issued to all the Universities in Pakistan recognized by HEC with the direction to respond to the above questions in writing. The said order also records that the representatives of the HEC (Awais Ahmad, Director General and Nazir Hussain, Resident Director HEC) categorically submitted that no formal approval from the Board of HEC has been granted to NTS to act as national testing body in terms of section 10 (1) (n) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 (“Ordinance”). The documents placed on the record by HEC and NTS 5 W.P. No.28028/2011 failed to show that NTS was a duly approved and recognized testing service under the Ordinance.

5. Thereafter, 43 Universities from all over Pakistan filed their written submissions regarding questions posed by this Court, while the submissions of the representatives of the under-mentioned Universities made in Court were recorded in order dated 25.10.2013 are reproduced hereunder:-

i. Dr. Shaukat Ali, Director Academics, University of Sargodha.

ii. Professor Dr. Habib-ur-Rehman, Chairman, Department of Physiology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore.

iii. Dr. Tahira Aziz Mughal, LahoreCollege for Women University Lahore.

iv. Dr. Haq Nawaz, Director Graduate Studies, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

v. Dr. Asad Zaheer, Acting Registrar, University of Health Sciences, Lahore.

vi. Dr. Hamid Saeed, Registrar, F.C.College, Lahore.

vii. Air Commodore (Retd.) Ghulam Mujaddid, Registrar, AirUniversity, Islamabad.

viii. Dr. Tariq Jadooni, LUMS, Lahore.

ix. Muhammad Asif Lateef, Additional Registrar, GovernmentCollegeUniversity, Faisalabad and Govt.College for WomenUniversity, Faisalabad.

x. Rana Hamayun Ihsan, Deputy Registrar, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad.

xi. Syed Hassan Aftab, Additional Director (Academics), International Islamic University, Islamabad.

xii. Tauqir Ahmed, Controller of Exams, NationalDefenceUniversity, E-9, Islamabad.

xiii Mohsin Ijaz Malik, Senior Deputy Registrar, Lahore School of Economics.

xiv. Saboor Ahmed Khan, Additional Registrar, G.C.University, Lahore.

6 W.P. No.28028/2011

xv. Muhammad Farhan Sadiq, Assistant Professor, Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore.

xvi. Engr. Nasrullah Khan Babar, Registrar, NFC Institute of Engineering & Technology, Multan.

Summary of the submissions made by the above representatives:-

a) That “Testing Body” at a national level is required but any such body must be a part of or backed by a colleguim of the recognized Universities in the country.

b) That the Testing Body should not be a private organization without any ownership of the Centres of academic excellence in the country i.e., recognized universities.

c) That the Vice Chancellor’s Committee constituted by the HEC can easily set the standard of entrance examinations/tests and, therefore, HEC can also act as a testing body.

d) Once the Testing Body is constituted in the above manner, there should be a proper regulatory framework for monitoring and auditing its performance.

e) That the Universities are fully capable of carrying out in house entrance tests and are carrying out such entrance tests in parallel with the test prescribed by NTS i.e., GAT.

f) GAT does not cover all the disciplines and, therefore, in many cases their entrance test is not relevant, as a result, the universities by and large place reliance on their own entrance tests.

g) A minority of the above representatives submitted that NTS is a good service, however, they admitted that they are not aware whether NTS is being regulated and monitored by HEC under the law and whether regular audit of the services rendered by NTS takes place.

h) Syed Hassan Aftab, Additional Director (Academics), International Islamic University, Islamabad, one of the above representatives, submitted that tests conducted by NTS are also 7 W.P. No.28028/2011 used for the purpose of awarding national and international scholarships. He submitted that in the absence of regulatory framework monitoring and overseeing the services of NTS, award of millions of rupees in scholarships is highly risky. He submitted that this aspect of the matter requires serious consideration as huge funds from national exchequer are dependent on the services rendered by the NTS.

j) That GAT administered by NTS has been made mandatory for entrance to their Universities due to a direction issued by the HEC in this regard.

6. The general summary of the submissions made by 43 Universities is as follows:-

i. Inferring form a majority of responses (32), Universities are of the opinion that an independent testing body should be established to develop and administer admission tests, and can legally be done under the clause (n) of subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002, so that candidates are admitted on the basis of merit, free of political interventions, working towards the development of international standards in education (7 of these respondents believe that NTS is providing a great education service and hence should be brought under the legal cover, for some, especially till the time a legally constituted testing body is not established); albeit, a few of these respondents are of the opinion that the services of such a testing body should not be made compulsory for the Universities (4 responses). However, a minority of Universities / Institutions (8 responses) have explicitly stated that the Universities should conduct their own admission tests, some suggesting that they are better equipped to judge their academic needs and standards, and hence, have developed their own tests (one stating that its system is based on rote learning whereas NTS is based on a mathematical model).

ii. Amongst the former group, there are two considerations; firstly, regarding the legal status and regulation of the testing body and secondly, regarding the number of testing bodies needed. A majority of  Universities emphasize that the testing body should be a public-entity, government owned, or owned / controlled by /formed with the assistance of Universities in some manner (for instance, through a collegium of Universities), whereas a few respondents have stated that it should be a non-profit entity. Universities are of the view that either the testing body should be set up by HEC or be a part of HEC (10 responses) or be constituted through an Act of the Parliament (3 responses). A dominant position is that a testing body should be regulated by HEC (17 responses), either through Rules made under the governing Ordinance or through international standard SOPs developed by HEC or through the VC Committee. However, some respondents have also stated that HEC cannot regulate such a testing body (10 responses), as HEC is a facilitating body, or because HEC will itself have set up the testing body under the governing Ordinance.

iii. About one half of 30 Universities have expressed the view that there should be multiple testing bodies, a couple of these having expressed that a testing body should be present in every major city or one in every Province, whereas the other half have stated that there should be one testing body operating at the national level for the sake of uniformity.

iv. Regarding NTS, as aforementioned, only a few Universities have stated that it is providing a great service, some adding that it should be given a legal cover, possibly by HEC signing a Memorandum of Understanding with NTS. However, an equal number of Universities have stated that NTS is working without HEC approval or legal backing hence its exam or service cannot be imposed on the Universities.

7. The question wise summary of the submissions made by the Universities is as follows:-

A. What is the nature & scope of a “testing body” envisaged in S. 10(1)(n) of the HEC Ordinance, 2002?

Question 1 largely elucidates interpretations of the legal provision as that the HEC is empowered to set up and/or appoint a Testing Body, in accordance with its purpose. Many 9 W.P. No.28028/2011 respondents have interpreted the provision to establish HEC’s role as facilitative rather than regulatory (see Question 5 below). A small number of replies stated that the NTS as it stands is not approved by the HEC and therefore is illegal, whilst others (two replies) emphasized the HEC’s position that a Testing Body does not require HEC approval. A significant number of replies (ten) suggested that this was a question for the HEC to respond to.

B. What is the nature & scope of service to be rendered by the said testing body?

Responses to Question 2 focused on the need for such a testing service that is for both admissions and for scholarships in Higher Education. A small number of respondents added that it would be useful for recruitment and promotion. This testing service body must be autonomous. A number of key features regarding the nature of these tests were emphasized: that they be based upon a uniform and high standard, be fair and equitable, bias free, transparent, provide standardized formulations and taxonomies of evaluatory tools, be credible, seek national and international acceptance, accommodate local socio-cultural difference and the indigenous context.

C. What is the scholastic capacity required of such a testing body?

A number of key feature emerge from responses to Question 3: that currently the NTS provides a more general service rather than specialist subject based service; that there is a requirement to have qualified academics at the helm of the design of questions, as reviewers and as paper-setters; that particular skills need to be evaluated as part of any national testing service, these include general aptitude and cognitive testing, analytical ability, reading, writing and comprehension skills; that minimum standards need to be adhered to and perhaps a Board of Academics or a Panel of Experts would be constituted to ensure these.  D. Can HEC regulate any such body under the Ordinance?

Question 4 elucidates four categories of responses: eight respondents stated that the HEC cannot regulate the Testing Body, a further ten believe that the HEC can regulate a Testing Body, three respondents believe that the HEC regulates indirectly either through the National Curriculum Review Committees or the Vice Chancellors Committee, and six respondents were unclear as to the regulatory role of the HEC under the Ordinance.

E. Should there be one testing body or more?

In response to Question 5 fifteen respondents stated that multiple testing bodies were preferable, while twelve were of the opinion that a singular body was preferable. Eight made no comment regarding a preference. A number of reasons were posited for each position, for the former to ensure flexibility and specialization in testing services with multiple Testing Bodies as well as avoiding a monopolistic situation and for the latter to develop uniformity in testing across the country.

F. What should be the legal status of the entity constituting the testing body?

Question 6 elicits a number of variable responses. A number of respondents (six) asserted the need for the legal status of a Testing Body to be that of a Public Sector Body, with a number of additional respondents (three) emphasizing that whether private or public, it must be a not-for-profit entity. A number of replies (ten) stated that the HEC should establish/ constitute and regulate this body in whatever form. Five respondents stated that there is a need for clarity on this either by the HEC and/or by legislative provisions.

8. Order dated 26.12.2013 records that the following legal issues required to be answered:- 11 W.P. No.28028/2011 i. That NTS does not have any approval under the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 (“Ordinance”) to hold itself to be as National Testing Body in terms of section 10(1)(n) of the Ordinance.

ii. That NTS or any other private or public sector entity can act as a testing body without the approval of the HEC and on the basis of its own strength and capacity. In such a situation, the HEC cannot support or sponsor any such testing body and it will not be binding on any University or Educational Institution in the country to be obligated to conduct a testing service from such entities except through a contract arrived at between the concerned institution and NTS.

iii. The directions issued in favour of NTS by HEC is without lawful authority and any such notification or letter issued by HEC shall be immediately withdrawn. NTS may continue as an entity and act as a testing body but it has no support or blessing of the government and it is voluntary on the Universities and Educational Institutions to engage or not to engage the services of NTS.

9. Considering the importance of the legal questions involved, Professor Dr. Osama Siddique, Mr. Salman Akram Raja and Ms. Misha Rehman Advocates were called as Amici Curiae, who rendered valuable assistance.

10. In the light of the above background, HEC and NTS have arrived at the following consensus:-

(i) that HEC will not sponsor or extend any patronage to NTS, as NTS is not an officially approved national testing service under the Ordinance;

(ii) the Universities and other academic institutions recognized by HEC are not under any lawful obligation to conduct tests organized by NTS or be bound by the results of NTS in the matter of admissions or grant of scholarships; 12 W.P. No.28028/2011 (iii) HEC through proper channel, will propose an amendment in the Ordinance/Rules in order to provide a proper regulatory statutory framework for establishing, monitoring and supervising a “national testing service” Till such time that proper legislation is put in place, HEC will not initiate the process of selecting and appointing a national testing body under the Ordinance;

(iv) NTS shall not hold itself out as an HEC approved “national testing service”. It may, however, continue operating as a private entity under the law, but shall not in any manner be taken to be an HEC approved entity.

(v) HEC will not enter into any fresh contract with NTS or any other entity unless and until NTS or any such entity has been duly approved by HEC under the Ordinance and in the manner described above;

(vi) the existing contract/arrangement entered between NTS and the Universities / academic institutions may continue or may be reviewed by the respective Universities / academic institutions, as the case may be, in the light of this order;

(vii) the existing arrangement between HEC and NTS shall only continue till 30.05.2014 (cut off date). HEC shall not enter into any arrangement/contract with NTS after the said cut off date.

11. Order accordingly./

12. HEC shall also ensure that the gist of this order is publically advertised so as to dispel the impression that NTS is a duly approved national testing body of HEC and will also duly intimate all the recognized Universities and academic institutions that admissions/scholarships will not be dependent on the test conducted by NTS after 30.05.2014. It will be the option of the University/academic institution to enter into an arrangement with NTS which will be no more than a private contractual arrangement 13 W.P. No.28028/2011 under the law governing the said University/academic institution. HEC will also display this order on its website for the facilitation of the public.

13. It is observed that this order does not touch upon past and closed transactions, therefore admissions and scholarships already granted or refused on the basis of the tests conducted by NTS in the past will not be reopened by virtue of this order. It is once again reiterated that the existing arrangement between NTS and HEC shall continue till 30.05.2014. This order shall, therefore, have a prospective effect only.

This post has been delivered by Mr. Qaiser Rasul.

Download full copy of the Decision oh LHC regarding GAT

The post Decision Copy of the Lahore High Court Lahore Regarding GAT appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Lahore High Court Lahore has given its decision on 6^th November 2013 in connection with Regularization and Reinstatement of the Employees of Environmental Protection Department Government of the Punjab.

All the appellants were appointed either through Public Service Commission or Departmental Selection Committee according to their respective education and eligibility in Environmental Protection Department Government of the Punjab. The appellants were appointed on contract bases under the Govt of the Punjab Contract Appointment Policy 2004, their contract of service remained in continued till 30-06-2012, when the appellant’s contract of service was terminated informing that the project has been ceased to exit. The appellants filed writ petitions challenging their termination of services.

Learned counsel for appellants submits that the Leaned Single Judge while passing the impugned orders has failed to appreciate the facts and law applicable on the facts of the cases, the respondents have wrongly terminated the appellants contract of service as the project has been declared project of permanent nature, the respondents are planning to hire fresh employees for the post held by the appellants. Leaned counsel of the appellants submits that the project was for the purpose of establishing environmental laboratories by putting their expertise, experience and day & night labour. All the laboratories become functional before 30-06-2012. After completion of the environmental laboratories, in 24^th evaluation meeting dated 02-07-2011, the Govt of the Punjab decided that the appellants projects be transferred with allied assets from development side to non development side. It is admitted fact that the project has been transferred from developmental to non developmental side and to run the laboratories, the respondents have to recruit fresh employees. The appellants have already completed more than three years and have gained sufficient experience. The newly appointed staff will be inexperienced and will not be able to deliver the required results.

In the above said circumstances, we accept both the Intra Court Appeals and declare that the appellants are the permanent employees of respondent Govt and they are entitled for payment of salaries from the day when they will resume their duties.

This post has been delivered by Mr. Tauseef Ahmed.

Download Full Copy of the Decision

The post Regularization & Reinstatement of the Employees of Environmental Protection Department Government of the Punjab-Decision of LHC Lahore appeared first on Galaxy World.

Lahore High Court has issued judgment on 2^nd April 2014 in connection with grant of Special Wapda Allowance @RS-10000/- PM to the Chemical Officers of PEPCO/WAPDA wef1/09/2009. Some points of this decision are as under:

Petitioners have invoked the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, alleging that the petitioners possessing degree of M.Sc (Chemical Engineering) and M.Sc (Chemical Technology) are entitled to the grant of Special Wapda Allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month wef 01-01-2009 which has been extended by Wapda and its relating companies/respondents to almost all categories of their employees of BPS-17 and above who posses B.Sc (Engineering and Master Degrees).

That the petitioners were constrained to send legal notice dated 24-10-2011 to the respondents seeking grant of Special Allowances which have been declined through the impugned order dated 03-11-2011. That the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative to the petitioner’s right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Petitioners therefore are entitled to the benefit of Special Wapda Allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month with effect from 01-09-2009.

For the above reasons the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Special Wapda Allowance to the petitioners in the above terms. Arrears towards Special Allowance in terms of this order shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of 90 days. You read the full details of this judgment on the copy of the decision.

This post has been delivered by Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Akhtar.

The post LHC Judgment Regarding Grant of Special Wapda Allowance @RS-10000/- PM to the Chemical Officers of PEPCO/WAPDA wef 1/09/2009 appeared first on Galaxy World.

The Punjab Mohtsib has issued orders on 14-02-2014 in connection with Appointment under Rule 17-A in the Department Instead of District. The detail of the case is as under:

Mrs. Ambar Rehman complained in the Mohtsib that her mother was a teacher and retired on Medical Grounds. She applied for the job under Rule 17-A to the EDO Muzaffar Garh on 31-07-2013 but still no action on the application. The report of the agency says that her mother retired from Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Abdul Hakim, so she must demand her right from the EDO Khanewal instead of Muzaffar Garh.

The complainant in her reply stated that in the Notification No. SOR-III(S&GAD)2-10/2006 dated 26^th January 2008 para No.1, it is written that the children of the deceased or invalid for further service be given the job in department instead of any particular district under Rule 17-A. The complainant stated that her domicile is of the District Muzaffar Garh and she is also married in the district Muzaffar Garh. That is why she wants to get her right from the EDO Muzaffar Garh.

In Rule 17-A there is no written that the children of the deceased or invalid for further service employees will get the job at that place where they were employed. The children of these employees can get job at any place. The representative of the EDO Muzaffar Garh had also the same demand that it can be sure that the complainant has not got job in Khanewal. It has been clarified from the report of the EDO Khanewal that no children of the said employee has got job in Khanewal.

It is therefore instructed to the EDO Muzaffar Garh, that the complainant be appointed as Junior Clerk on the basis of her qualification and if she did not pass the tying test, she may be offered the job of Class-IV and be informed the forum under the rules.  This post has been delivered by Mr.  AZAZ UR RAHMAN KHAN. 

The post Appointment under Rule 17-A in the Department Instead of District-Decision of the Punjab Mohtsib appeared first on Galaxy World.