Did you get paid after termination and your appointment was illegal ?
 |
| Case law on Salary of civil servant |
غیر قانونی تقرری کے باوجود انجام دی گئی سروس کی اجرت کا قانونی حق — عدالتی نظائر کی روشنی میں
پاکستان میں یہ اصول اب عدالتی نظائر کے ذریعے مضبوطی سے طے ہو چکا ہے کہ اگر کوئی سرکاری یا نیم سرکاری ملازم حقیقتاً ڈیوٹی انجام دے چکا ہو تو محض اس بنیاد پر کہ اس کی تقرری بعد میں غیر قانونی یا پالیسی کے خلاف قرار دی گئی، اس کی تنخواہ روکی نہیں جا سکتی۔ تنخواہ کوئی سرکاری عنایت نہیں بلکہ کیے گئے کام کا معاوضہ ہے، جس سے انکار آئینی خلاف ورزی کے مترادف ہے۔
لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا بنیادی قانونی مؤقف
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے واضح طور پر قرار دیا ہے کہ حکومت یا متعلقہ اتھارٹی اگر کسی ملازم کو تقرر دے کر اس سے کام لیتی ہے تو بعد میں تقرری کو غلط یا غیر قانونی قرار دے کر اس عرصے کی سیلری روکنا قانوناً درست نہیں۔ ایسی صورت میں غلطی حکومت یا ادارے کی سمجھی جائے گی، نہ کہ ملازم کی۔
Dr. Ali Hussain کیس کے حقائق کا خلاصہ
درخواست گزار ڈاکٹر علی حسین سرکاری ملازمت سے ریٹائر ہونے کے بعد شیخ زید میڈیکل کالج و ہسپتال رحیم یار خان میں ایڈہاک بنیاد پر اسسٹنٹ پروفیسر مقرر ہوئے۔ انہوں نے مقررہ مدت کے دوران باقاعدہ فرائض انجام دیے، تاہم آڈٹ اعتراض کی بنیاد پر بورڈ نے ان کی تقرری کو ری ایمپلائمنٹ پالیسی کے خلاف قرار دے کر سیلری روک لی۔ اس اقدام کے خلاف ڈاکٹر علی حسین نے لاہور ہائیکورٹ میں آئینی درخواست دائر کی۔
حکومت کا مؤقف اور عدالت کا تجزیہ
حکومت کی جانب سے یہ مؤقف اختیار کیا گیا کہ ریٹائرڈ سرکاری ملازم کی دوبارہ تقرری پالیسی کے خلاف تھی، اس لیے سیلری ادا نہیں کی جا سکتی۔ عدالت نے اس دلیل کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ ری ایمپلائمنٹ پالیسی پر عملدرآمد کرنا حکومت اور بورڈ کی ذمہ داری تھی، نہ کہ ملازم کی۔ اگر تقرری میں کوئی قانونی سقم تھا تو اس کا خمیازہ ملازم کو نہیں بھگتنا پڑ سکتا۔
تنخواہ روکنا جبری مشقت کے مترادف
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ کسی شخص سے کام لے کر اس کی اجرت ادا نہ کرنا آئینِ پاکستان کے آرٹیکل گیارہ کی صریح خلاف ورزی ہے، جو جبری مشقت کو ممنوع قرار دیتا ہے۔ عدالت کے مطابق ایسا طرزِ عمل غلامی اور استحصال کے زمرے میں آتا ہے، جس کی آئین اجازت نہیں دیتا۔
عدالت کا حتمی فیصلہ
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے رٹ پٹیشن منظور کرتے ہوئے واضح حکم دیا کہ درخواست گزار نے جس مدت تک خدمات انجام دی ہیں، اس پورے عرصے کی تنخواہ ادا کی جائے۔ عدالت نے ہدایت دی کہ تمام بقایاجات تیس دن کے اندر ادا کی جائیں، چاہے تقرری بعد میں غیر قانونی ہی کیوں نہ قرار دی گئی ہو۔
اس فیصلے سے طے ہونے والا قانونی اصول
اس فیصلے سے یہ اصول مستحکم ہو گیا ہے کہ
اگر کوئی ملازم حقیقتاً ڈیوٹی انجام دے چکا ہو تو
اس کی تقرری غیر قانونی، بے قاعدہ یا پالیسی کے خلاف ہونے کے باوجود
اس کی تنخواہ روکی نہیں جا سکتی۔
ریاست یا ادارہ اپنی انتظامی غلطی کا بوجھ ملازم پر منتقل نہیں کر سکتا۔
عملی قانونی رہنمائی
اگر کسی سرکاری یا خودمختار ادارے کے ملازم کی تنخواہ اس بنیاد پر روکی جائے کہ اس کی تقرری غلط یا غیر قانونی تھی، تو وہ ملازم لاہور ہائیکورٹ میں آئینی درخواست دائر کر کے اپنی مکمل سیلری حاصل کر سکتا ہے، بشرطیکہ وہ یہ ثابت کرے کہ اس نے متعلقہ مدت میں ڈیوٹی انجام دی تھی۔
رٹ پٹیشن میں لاھور ھائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر ملازم
نے ڈیوٹی انجام دی ھو چاھے گورنمنٹ ایک دفعہ تقرر کرنے کے بعد تقرری اس کو نوکری سے برخاست بھی کر دے لیکن جس تاریخ تک ملازم نے ڈیوٹی انجام دی وہ سیلری کا حق دار ھے۔
پٹشنر نے رٹ فائل کی لا ہور ھائی کورٹ میں کے ھاسپٹل میں جاب کرتا رہا ھے ور اس سے پہلے سرکاری جاب سے ریٹایر ھوا تھا۔ اور بورڈ نے میری تقرری کو غلط قرار دے کر سیلری روک لی ہے۔
یہ کہ گورمنٹ کی پالیسی ھے کہ سرکاری ملازم ریٹایر ھونے کہ بعد دوبارہ سرکاری جاب نہیں کر سکتا۔
ھاییکورٹ نے سیلری روکنے کو مختلف کیس لاذ کی روشنی میں غیر قانونی قرار دیا اور حکم دیا کہ تیس دن کے اندر تمام سیلریز ادا کی جاییں۔
Must read judgement
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR
Judicial Department
W. P. No. 1447 / 2021 / BWP
Dr. Ali Hussain, Ex-Assistant Professor
Versus
Government of the Punjab through its Chief Secretary, Civil
Secretariat, Lahore and six others
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing:
06.09.2021
Petitioner(s) By:
Mr. Muhammad Farooq Warind,
Advocate
Respondent(s)
By:
Mr. Khurram Shahzad, Advocate
Ch. Shahid Mehmood, AAG
ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, J: The brief facts of this case are
that Respondent No. 3, Sheikh Zayed Medical College/ Hospital,
Rahim Yar Khan (the “SZMC”) established under Section 3 of
the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Act, 2003 (IX of
2003) (the “Act”), is an autonomous medical institution as
defined in Section 2(d) of the Act and declared as such by the
Government of the Punjab (the “Government”) vide its
Notification No. SO(AMI) General-8/2003(P) dated 10.12.2003.
The administration and management of the affairs of the SZMC
as an independent institution are vested in its Board of
Management (the “Board”) constituted under Section 6 of the
Act and the Government is the controlling and supervisory
authority thereof. The Government or the Board is empowered
to appoint persons in the service of the SZMC under the
provisions of the Act and Rules framed under Section 18 of the
Act, namely, the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Rules
2
W. P. No. 1447 / 2011 / BWP
2003 (the “Rules”). As per Rule 10 of the Rules, there are two
categories of employees of the SZMC, first; the Government
employees appointed by transfer or promotion and the second;
the employees in service of the SZMC appointed either on
contract or on ad hoc basis. As per Schedule-III of the
Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules for the Employees
of the Institutions under Rule 12 of the Rules, the appointment
of employees of the SZMC are made either by the Government
on recommendations of Special Selection Board in case of
employees of BS-17 and above or by the Board on the
recommendations of the Selection Committee in case of the posts
of BS-16 and below. However, under Section 9 of the Act, the
Government or the Board, as the case may be, have concurrent
authority to fill up the vacancy temporarily on ad hoc basis for a
period of six months or till the arrival of the new incumbent
recommended by the Special Selection Board, constituted under
Section 10 of the Act read with the Rules. The Board being a
competent authority appointed the Petitioner as Assistant
Professor (BPS-18) on ad hoc basis for six months w.e.f.
01.07.2019 to 30.12.2019 vide notification bearing Ref. No.
42516-22/SZMC/SZH dated 07.10.2019 and the Petitioner duly
performed his functions / duties under the said appointment.
However, the Petitioner has not been paid his emoluments /
salaries for the period from September to December, 2019.
Hence, the instant Petition.
2.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the
Petitioner is entitled to receive monthly salaries for the period he
served as an ad hoc employee, because the salary is not a state
bounty rather it is a right of the Petitioner who has duly
performed his duties as envisaged under Section 16 of the Punjab
Civil Servants Act, 1974. No performance of duty could be left
without payment of adequate agreed compensation otherwise the
same is hit by Article 11 of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the “Constitution”) and the superior
3
W. P. No. 1447 / 2011 / BWP
Courts have labeled it as forced labour. Learned counsel further
submitted that the Petitioner submitted an application for
releasing of his outstanding salaries before Respondent No. 5
(The Principal, SZMC) who sent the same to Respondent No. 7
(the Director Finance, SZMC) with the direction to release the
salaries to the Petitioner for the unpaid period vide endorsement
No. 1686/PA/SZMC dated 13.10.2020. But despite lapse of
reasonable time, he did not issue any direction for releasing of
salaries to the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner sought a
declaration regarding his entitlement to receive his outstanding
salaries for the period from September to December, 2019.
Reliance was placed on the cases titled, “Abdul Qadir v. District
Education Officer (EE & M), District Rahim Yar Khan and
other” (2001 PLC (C.S.) 1073), “Qazi Akhtar Ali v. Director of
Agriculture (Economics and Marketing) Punjab Agriculture
House, Lahore and another” (2000 PLC (C.S.) 784); “Mst.
Margrate v. Executive District Officer Schools and Literacy
Department, District Charsadda and 4 others” (2005 PLC (C.S.)
886); “Mst. Shamim Bano v. Province of Punjab through Chief
Secretary, Education and 3 others” (1998 PLC (C.S.) 337);
“Mst. Ghosia Naz v. Deputy Education Officer” (1997 PLC
(C.S.) 666); “Iftikhar Ahmad and others v. E.D.O. (Health)”
(2009 PLC (C.S.) 600); “Ghulam Umar Kazi v. General
Manager and others” (2006 PLC (C.S.) 1143); “Mujeebur
Rehman and 24 others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary
Education, Education Department, Government of Sindh and 3
others” (2012 PLC (C.S.) 708); and “Muhammad Rafique v.
WAPDA” (1989 PLC (C.S.) 417).
3.
Report and Parawise comments were filed on behalf
of Respondents No. 3 to 7, whereby, it was admitted that SZMC
is an autonomous medical institution, administration and
management of which vest in the Board constituted under
Section 6 of the Act subject to the direction of the Government
issued from time to time. It was further submitted that the
4
W. P. No. 1447 / 2011 / BWP
Petitioner retired from Government service on attaining the age
of superannuation and was appointed on ad hoc basis for a period
from 01.07.2019 to 31.12.2019 with the approval of the Board.
The Government formulated Re-Employment Policy vide
Notification No. SOR-I-10-1/2003 dated 16.06.2003 (the “ReEmployment Policy”) under Section 13(1) of the Punjab Civil
Servants Act, 1974 which stipulated that “A retired civil servant
shall not be re-employed under the Government unless such reemployment is necessary in the public interest and is made,
except where the appointing authority is the Governor, with the
prior approval of the authority next above the appointing
authority.” He relied upon the following guidelines of the ReEmployment Policy applicable to the retired Government
servants:-
“Re-employment to be generally avoided:
i)
Section 13(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974
provides that a retired person shall not be reemployed under the Government unless such reemployment is necessary in the public interest.
ii)
No Department or authority shall re-employ or
move a summary to the Chief Minister for reemployment of a retired Government servant
without placing the case before the Provincial Reemployment Board/ Committee, as the case may be.
iii) Re-employment after the age of
superannuation/retirement shall generally be
discouraged and shall only be made in very
exceptional circumstances, where;
a. Suitable officer to replace the retiring
officer is not available;
b. The re-employment does not cause
promotion blockade, even if reemployment is proposed against an excadre post;
c. The retired officer is a highly competent
person with distinction in his professional
field;
d. Retention of the retiring officer for a
specific period is in the public interest.
iv)
Re-employment shall not be allowed to
retired officers beyond the age of 63 years.
v)
Re-employment shall not be allowed to
persons who have been or may be, retired on
5
W. P. No. 1447 / 2011 / BWP
or after completion of 25 years service
qualifying for pension.
vi)
The period of re-employment shall not exceed
three years.”
4.
Learned counsel for Respondents No. 3 to 7
submitted that during the audit of the SZMC conducted by the
office of the Auditor General Punjab, appointment of the
Petitioner was observed as irregular, in compliance of which
salaries of the Petitioner were withheld by the SZMC subject to
the directions of Respondent No. 2 (the Secretary, Government
of the Punjab, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education
Department). The matter was placed before the Board in its 58th
meeting held on 14.01.2020, which considered and disapproved
the re-employment of the Petitioner and other civil servants after
their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and
referred the case to Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated
20.03.2020 for further directions with respect to disbursement of
their unpaid salaries which is still awaited to-date. Learned
counsel further submitted that Respondents No. 3 to 7 are
subservient to the directions of the Government and have
fulfilled their duty towards the Petitioner by referring the matter
to Respondent No. 2 who is the competent authority to decide the
issue of unpaid salaries. He conceded that the Writ Petition on
the subject is maintainable but the Petitioner should have voiced
his grievance, if any, before Respondent No. 2 being competent
authority in the matter. He relied upon the orders dated
03.03.2021 passed in W.Ps. No. 1647 and 1642 of 2021 / BWP,
whereby, this Court had referred the identical matters to
Respondent No. 2 for decision in accordance with law and
pleaded that this Petition be also dealt with accordingly.
5.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that Respondent No. 2 has already passed orders in
compliance with the above referred orders passed by this Court
dated 03.03.2021, whereby, he has again directed Respondent
No. 4 to place the case before the Board for payment of unpaid
6
W. P. No. 1447 / 2011 / BWP
salaries. Therefore, any further recourse towards Respondent No.
2 would be an exercise in futility. The order No. SO(AMI.1)5-
393/21 dated 14.06.2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 in
compliance of the order of this Court dated 03.03.2021 in W. P.
No. 1647 / 2021 was allowed to be placed on record, paragraph
No. 7 whereof, reads as under:-
“NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
after examination of the relevant law, facts and
perusal of record relevant to this matter, I, Barrister
Nabeel Ahmad Awan, Secretary, Government of the
Punjab, Specialized Healthcare & Medical
Education Department, do hereby direct that
Principal, Sheikh Zayed Medical College /
Hospital, R.Y. Khan shall place the case of the
petitioner before the Board of Management of
SZMC, R.Y. Khan for approval of payment of
salaries w.e.f. 01.10.2019 to 09.10.2019 and
28.11.2019 to 31.12.2019 to the petitioner for the
work done. If desired by the Board, Admin Wing of
this department is directed to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the concerned Principal, for
his illegal acts.”
6.
Arguments heard, record perused.
7.
It is admitted that the Petitioner worked as an ad hoc
employee in the SZMC under the Re-Employment Policy and
has not been paid his salaries for four months from September to
December, 2019. From the perusal of Re-Employment Policy it
reveals that it was the duty of the Board or the Government to
comply with the same and not the employee / Petitioner. The
Board or the Government must bear the brunt for any illegal or
irregular appointment under the Re-Employment Policy. The
Petitioner cannot be made to suffer with respect to the
emoluments of service duly rendered by him. The act of the
W. P. No. 1447 / 2011 / BWP
Respondents regarding stoppage of salaries of the Petitioner for
the services rendered by him amounted to forced labour and is
violative of Article 11 of the Constitution which stipulates as
under:-
“(1) Slavery is non-existent and forbidden and no law
shall permit or facilitate its introduction into
Pakistan in any form.
(2) All forms of forced labour and traffic in human
beings are prohibited…”
Hence, the Petitioner was entitled to all the emoluments
regarding his appointment as there was no provision or concept
for service without salary under the law. The Petitioner had been
made to work without payment of emoluments which is against
the law. Denial of his valuable right of remuneration is also
against the dictate of Article 3 of the Constitution which casts a
duty upon the State to “ensure the elimination of all forms of
exploitation and gradual fulfilment of the fundamental principle,
from each according to his ability to each according to his
work.”
8.
Respondent No. 2 through the order dated
14.06.2021 passed in the case of similarly placed persons
recognized the right to unpaid salaries but fell short of resolving
the matter. Rather, it tantamounts to make a mockery of such
persons. The Board says that the Government is the competent
authority, whereas, Respondent No. 2 has again referred the
matter to the Board for approval. Therefore, any further recourse
to Respondent No. 2 would be illusionary and an exercise in
futility. The Re-Employment Policy indicates that there is not a
complete embargo of such re-employment which could be made
in public interest. The adherence to Re-Employment Policy was
the duty of the Government or the Board. The sole responsibility
regarding objection raised by the Director General Audit, Punjab,
Lahore that the appointment of the Petitioner under ReEmployment Policy was illegal, is placed upon the Respondents.
It was only on account of audit objection that Director Finance
8
W. P. No. 1447 / 2011 / BWP
of the SZMC stopped salaries of the Petitioner. The Board in its
meeting held on 14.01.2020 has already disapproved the reappointment of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2020. Hence, service
of the Petitioner has already been dispensed with and the only
alive issue is regarding the disbursement of unpaid salaries.
9.
From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the
Petitioner is entitled to receive his unpaid salaries. Accordingly,
this Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to
forthwith release unpaid salaries of the Petitioner till the date of
termination of his service within 30 days from the date of this
Order.
(ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA)
JUDGE
*WaqaR*
No comments:
Post a Comment