LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday directed Punjab Chief Secretary to decide within two months the matter raised in some a petition filed by district attorneys/law officers seeking executive allowance.
During the hearing, petitioner Raj Maqsood and others through their counsel Ch Shoaib Saleem advocate argued on maintainability of the writ petition and told the court that as per Section 4 (1) and (1-A) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974, the service tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as no final order has been passed by any department authority.
The counsel further added that the policy of awarding executive allowance to various civil servants were approved by the cabinet and then notified by the Punjab governor, hence this policy matter can only be reviewed by the high court under Article 199 of the constitution. The lawyer concluded that the objection raised by the court Article 212 of the constitution is not applicable on the present petition also due to the reason that the members of service tribunal are themselves the beneficiaries of the executive allowance.
On the other hand, the assistant advocate general vehemently opposed this assertion and argued that the present petition is related to terms and conditions of the civil servants; hence this court has no jurisdiction to take up this matter.
Almost more than 20 petitioner law officers/attorney were also present in the court and showed their consent that the matter be referred to the chief secretary to finally dispose of their grievances.
The petitioner law officers had moved the court with the assertions that they qualified competitive exam of the Punjab Public Service Commission (BS-17&18) and were working as assistant/deputy district attorneys/law officers in all districts of the province. They said they had been rendering their services on same pattern of the law officers of the Punjab advocate general office. However, the government granted executive allowance (1.5 times of monthly basic pay) to all officers of same rank working in the S&GAD but the petitioners had been excluded from the facility in a discriminatory manner.
Their counsel argued that by granting executive allowance the officers of the S&GAD had become superior to those working in other departments in same grade in spite of the fact that petitioners dealt with more critical matters of legal nature. He argued that the act of government was based on discrimination and in violation of fundamental rights, therefore liable to be declared as illegal and unlawful. He sought court’s direction to the government to the provision of the executive allowance to the petitioners as well.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021
Comments
Comments are closed.