2020 P L C 96
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Abdul Hameed Baloch and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, JJ
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER QESCO and another
Versus
AZIZULLAH, COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT and 3 others
Constitutional Petition No.1151 of 2017, decided on 6th August, 2019.
Balochistan Industrial Relations Act (XIV of 2010) ---
----S.41 ---Redressal of individual grievances ---Scope ---Respondents claimed two step time
scale up -gradation on the basis of an official memorandum issued by the respondent ---Trial
Court a nd Appellate Tribunal concurrently accepted the application of respondents ---
Validity ---Petitioners had not produced any single documentary evidence before the Trial
Court except recording statement of representative--- Petitioners had failed to discard the
referred memorandum/notification ---Petitioners had relied upon different official
memorandums in their written statement but failed to substantiate the same ---Mere
mentioning the documents in pleadings were not enough to be accepted rather the same was
required to be proved--- Official memorandum relied upon by respondents manifested that the
employees working in BPS -15 were entitled for two step time scale up -gradation--- Since the
respondents fulfilled the requisite qualification, therefore, they were enti tled for two step
time scale up -gradation ---Petitioners had failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in
the concurrent judgments passed by the courts below ---Constitutional petition, being bereft
of merit, was dismissed.
Ghulam Mustafa Buzdar for Petitioners.
Abdul Rasheed Awan for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
Date of hearing: 29th July, 2019.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. ----This Constitutional Petition is directed against
the judgment dated 03.08.2017, passed by the District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer/Labour Court -I, Balochistan Quetta (trial Court) whereby the application filed by the
respondents Nos.1 to 3 under section 41 of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 was allowed and appeal filed thereon by the petitioner before t he Labour Appellate Tribunal
Balochistan, Quetta (Appellate Tribunal) was dismissed vide judgment dated 29th September, 2017.
2. Brief facts leading to file the instant petition are that the applicants/respondents
entered into services of WAPDA as LKBC on 14.12.1981, 01.07.1980 and 06.07.1981
respectively; thereafter they were promoted to the post of UDC on 13.01.1986, 14.02.1985 and 09.09.1987 respectively. The applicants/respondents served the department with utmost satisfaction and no complaint has come on record against them, as such, vide office order
dated 02.11.2005, the applicants were promoted to the next grade i.e. Commercial
Superintendent (BPS -15) and till now the applicants/respondents are serving on the same
grade. Thereafter, vide office order dated 13.03.2008 the PEPCO was pleased to upgrade the
posts of Commercial Assistant from BPS -11 to BPS -14 w.e.f. 01.07.2007 and vide office
order dated 31.12.2013 respondents/petitioners were pleased to further upgrade the posts of
Commercial Assistant fr om BPS -14 to BS -16. The PEPCO vide its Office Memorandum
dated 17.10.2011 was pleased to grant one step up- gradation to the officials in BPS -15 from
original scale of the post, which office Memorandum was amended vide office memorandum dated 22.04.2013. In view of said memorandum the applicants are entitled for two steps up -
gradation in BPS -17, but without any reason the applicants have not been granted the same.
Further the Commercial Superintendent who are junior by the designation from the applicants are allowed to draw their pay and perks in BPS -16, while applicants/respondents
senior from the Commercial Assistant are granted BPS -15 which is not permissible under the
law. In such circumstances the applicants/respondents preferred grievance notice to the petitioners/but not responded. Hence filling of application before the trial court.
3. The petitioners contested the application by filing written statement and raised certain
legal objections. The learned trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application vide judgment dated 03.08.2017.
4. The petitioners being aggrieved of the judgment, passed by the trial court preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties, up- held the judgment pas sed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide
judgment dated 29.10.2017, hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the both the judgments, passed by
the courts below are contrary to law and fact and based on surmises and conjectures; that
both the courts below have not appreciated the documents produced by the petitioners in true perspective; that the relief granted to respondents Nos.1 to 3 by the courts below are against the law. He lastly prayed by setting aside th e judgments passed by the court below by
dismissing the grievance application.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 strongly opposed the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the courts below have rightly granted the
relief by considering the documents available on record in its true perspective. He urged for dismissal of the petition.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The
perusal of record reveals that the respondents were appointed as LKBC on 14.12.1981, 01.07.1980 and 06.07.1981 respectively, thereafter they were promoted to the post of UDC
on 13- 1-1986, 14.02.1985 and 09.09.1987 respectively. In the year 1995 the post of UDC
was converted into Commercial Assistant BPS -11, and thereafter the respondents were
promoted as Commercial Superintendent BPS -15 vide office order No.C10/QESCO.
HR&AD/D M(HRM)/56540- 53, dated 02.11.2005. The respondents are working as
Commercial Superintendent since their promotion from the post of Commercial Assistant,
and till now neither any sort of complaint nor any disciplinary action was taken against them
and the petitioners were satisfied from their hard working. The AM (Admin) PEPCO, with
the approval of MD PEPCO issued an official Memorandum No.GM (HR)/HRD/A -
693/L/1356- 90, dated April, 22nd, 2013, the theme of the same is reproduced herein below:
Approval of Managing Director PEPCO is hereby conveyed for grant of two- step
Time Scale Up gradation (TSU) to the following categories with immediate effect in
order to maintain uniformity in the organization with no change in criteria contained therein.
a. Employees in BPS-15.
b. Stenographer Grade -I,
The deficit of one step up- gradation would be admissible where up- gradation has been
allowed earlier by one step. In all it will be two steps on current substantive scale in case of BPS -1 to 15 and in case of employees i n substantively in BPS -16 it would be
one step upgradation. Stenographers Grade -II are already entitled for two steps Up -
gradation from BPS -12 to BPS -14.
8. In view of the above notification, the respondents claimed their two step time scale
up-gradation. The learned trial court framed issues, but the petitioners did not produce any
single documentary evidence before the trial court except recording statement of representative namely Khushnood Ahmed. The petitioner has failed to discard the referred memoran dum/notification. The petitioners relied upon different official memorandum in
written statement but failed to substantiate the same. Mere mentioning the documents in pleadings are not enough to be accepted rather the same are required to be proved accordi ng
to the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The official memorandum dated 22.4.2013 as relied
upon by respondents clearly manifest that the employee working in BPS -15 are entitled for
two steps up- gradation. Since the respondents are fulfilling the requisite q ualification,
therefore they were entitled for two step time scale up -gradation.
In view of above, the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality and irregularity
in the concurrent judgments passed by the courts below warranting interference by t his court.
Therefore, petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed accordingly.
SA/104/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.