Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary & 2 others Vs Tahir Mahmood Ahmad etc

StereoHCJDA 38

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

ICA No. 68752 of 2023.

Province of Punjab etc. v. Tahir Mehmood Ahmad etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 07.10.2026.

Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Irfan Khan AAG with Mr. Saqib Mubarik Bhatti, Advocate/Legal Consultant and Rafi Ahmad, Senior Law Officer, Health and Population Welfare Department.

Respondents by: M/s Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Javwad Tariq Nasim, Usman Shafiq Butt and Anas Sheikh, Advocates for the respondents in this appeal.

M/s Kashif Ali Chaudhary and Babay Tabassum, Advocates for the respondents in ICA No.68753/2023.

Shireen Imran, J: - Through this consolidated judgment, we intend to decide ICA No.68752 of 2023 (this appeal) as well as ICA No.68753 of 2023 (connected appeal) having commonality of law and facts concerning the entitlement of Statistical Assistants, working in different departments of the Government of Punjab, for upgradation of their posts to BS-16

on the analogy of the posts of Assistants working in other departments.

2.Briefly, the respondents, being Statistical Assistants, filed Writ Petitions seeking upgradation of their posts to BS-16 on the strength of Notifications dated 10.09.2007 and 04.01.2016, issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Punjab, whereby the posts of Assistants had been upgraded. Their grievance was that despite performing duties allegedly comparable to those of Assistants, their posts had initially been upgraded from BS-11 to BS-15 instead of BS-16. The learned Single Judge, through judgments dated 07.11.2022 and 06.03.2023, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 20655 of 2022 (subject matter of this appeal) and 17689 of 2021 (subject matter of connected appeal) allowed the writ petitions and directed extension of the benefit granted in earlier judgments, subject to those decisions still holding the field. Aggrieved thereof, the Government of Punjab has filed these appeals.

3.Learned Law Officer, appearing on behalf of the appellants, contends that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the posts of Statistical Assistant and Assistant are entirely distinct, governed by separate service rules and carrying different qualifications, duties, responsibilities and promotional

avenues; that the Notifications relied upon by the respondents specifically pertain to the posts mentioned therein and do not include Statistical Assistants; that the latter posts were independently upgraded from BS-11 to BS-15 through Notification dated 14.12.2018 after consideration by the competent authority; that upgradation of a post is essentially a policy matter falling within the exclusive domain of the executive, involving administrative requirements, financial implications and the overall service structure, and that no employee possesses a vested right to claim upgradation merely on the basis of similarity in nomenclature or resemblance of duties.

4.Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if limitation if reckoned from the date of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan i.e. 11.08.2023, both these appeals are time barred. Supports the impugned judgments by submitting that denial of grant of same scale, despite upgradation of other posts, amounts to discrimination.

5.Arguments heard; available record perused.

6.Firstly, taking up the point of limitation, we have observed that the case was remanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order, dated 11.08.2023, certified copy of that

order was applied on the same day i.e. 11.08.2023 which was delivered on 21.08.2023 and these appeals were filed on 04.09.2023, thus, after excluding the time spent in fetching attesting copy of the order, these petitions have been filed within time. Thus, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents qua limitation is hereby spurned.

7.Now reverting to merits of the case, pivotal question which require determination by this Court is as to whether the respondents, holding the posts of Statistical Assistant, can claim upgradation to BS-16 as a matter of right because the posts of Assistants in other departments have been upgraded to the said scale. The answer, in our considered view, is in the negative. It is a settled principle that creation, abolition, restructuring and upgradation of posts are matters primarily falling within the policy-making domain of the competent authority. Such decisions depend upon several considerations, including the nature of duties, prescribed qualifications, responsibilities attached to a particular post, organizational requirements, promotional structure and financial resources. The constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is undoubtedly available where executive action is shown to be unlawful, arbitrary or discriminatory; however, in the absence of such illegality, the Court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the

competent authority or direct upgradation of a particular post merely on considerations of perceived parity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Islamabad v.

Muhammad Ahmed Khan and others (2025 PLC (C.S.) 510), Amanullah v. Hospital Director, KTH (MTI), Peshawar and others (2023 SCMR 418) and Fida Muhammad v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education, Peshawar and others (2021 SCMR 1895), has held that upgradation is a policy-based benefit, distinct from promotion, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. An employee seeking such benefit is bound to satisfy the conditions stipulated in the relevant policy, including the prescribed length of service and the applicable cut- off date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as Attaullah Khan v. Ali Azam Afridi and others (2023 PLC (CS) 182) has held that when a law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner only.

8.In the present cases, the respondents are admittedly holding the posts of Statistical Assistant, whereas the benefit claimed by them was extended to the holders of posts of Assistant. The two posts are distinct in their nomenclature, prescribed qualifications, nature of duties, responsibilities and

service structure. They are not shown to be interchangeable or governed by identical recruitment and promotion criteria. For facility of reference the duties being performed by both the posts, under discussion, are listed below: - Sr. Duties of Assistant as per Duties of Statistical Assistant in # Manual of Secretariat Different Departments (Annex- Instructions, 2016 XVII, XVIII, XIX & XX) (Annex-XVI) Depart- Duties ment

i)He will maintain reference L&DD Collection of books and keep them up-to- statistical data, its date by getting the classification and correction slips pasted. analysis.

ii)He is personally responsible Labour Consolidation of data for adding to a case any received from precedent, policy, rules, or establishment under regulations relating to it, Statistical Act, 1941 and flagging them properly and making references in the margin of the case before its submission to the Section Officer.

iii)He should undertake Industries Data bank collection in reference and research tabulation of data of work, i e. acquaint himself industries sector-wise. with the rules and regulations pertaining to the subjects dealt with in his Section, maintain such statistics as are required by the Section Officer (e.g. in a Service Branch, maintain lists of officers belonging to a specific cadre, showing their latest postings, etc.), and while examining old records, take extracts of important policy decisions, etc.

iv He will record advice P&D Maintenance of office tendered by the Services, record. Collection/ Law and Finance tabulation of Statistical Departments on any Data from field important matters referred including daily retail to these Departments in a prices from market. note book and also keep Assistance to office

with him a separate incharge in reference collection of administrative matters. important decisions. v He will prepare such statements and returns and collect such material and statistics, as may be required by the Section Officer.

vi He will also maintain prescribed charts regarding:

a. all outstanding reports and returns due to be received in the Section or to be submitted by the Section; and

b. Time-limit cases. vii In the temporary absence of the Section Officer, he will submit and personally explain urgent cases to the Deputy Secretary concerned.

viii He will undertake periodically a proper classification, recording, indexing and weeding of files in accordance with the instructions contained in this Manual under the guidance of the Section Officer and submit a half- yearly certificate of compliance to the Deputy Secretary concerned through the Section Officer, by the end of June and December each year.

ix He will compare typing work with the Section Stenographer/Clerk, when necessary.

x He will generally instruct and guide the Section Clerk and supervise his work. In the temporary absence of the Section Officer, he will attend to any urgent references or cases that may require immediate attention.

xi In the absence of a clerk/record keeper, he will perform the duties of the clerk/record keeper.

xii He will prepare drafts for approval after final orders have been passed.

xiii He will take follow-up action by putting up reminders for signature of the concerned Section Officer on due dates. He will also collect information from the concerned agencies.

The above reproduced table makes it abundantly clear that duties being performed by the posts, under discussion, are entirely different.

9.Mere use of the word "Assistant" in both designations does not establish equivalence between the said posts. Likewise, similarity in some functions, even if assumed for the sake of argument, cannot by itself confer a legal right to identical pay scales. The principle of equality enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution requires equal treatment of persons similarly situated and does not mandate identical treatment of employees belonging to different service cadres governed by different conditions of service. Unless substantial parity in the relevant service characteristics is established, the plea of discrimination cannot be sustained.

10.A learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment, dated 23.10.2025, rendered in ICA No.11177/2021, titled Shagufta Naseer etc. v. Chief Executive Officer, District Health Authority, Sargodha etc. has held that purpose of upgradation is to eliminate the sufferings of employees from stagnation and to avoid them from being stuck up in some isolated post without any pathway or probability of promotion despite satisfactory length of service. So far as these petitions are concerned, the competent authority had already considered the question of upgradation of Statistical Assistants and, through Notification dated 14.12.2018, upgraded their posts from BS-11 to BS-15 so the respondents cannot claim that they are working against stagnant posts. The said decision reflects a separate policy determination for the cadre of respondents. The fact that a higher scale was allowed to another category of employees does not, ipso-facto, render the decision concerning Statistical Assistants discriminatory or unlawful. Notifications, dated 10.09.2007 and 04.01.2016, relied upon by the respondents, do not specifically extend the acclaimed benefit to their posts. Consequently, no enforceable right for upgradation to BS-16 could be founded upon those Notifications in the absence of a corresponding decision of the competent authority.

11.We have examined the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge and find that the impugned decision is principally based on the order dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.P. No.11511 of 2017, titled Danyal ud Din & others v. Secretary Local Government & Communication Development, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others. The said case, however, is clearly distinguishable as the posts held by the petitioners therein had remained without upgradation for 20 to 25 years, whereas the posts held by the respondents in the present appeals had already been upgraded from BS-11 to BS-15 vide Notification dated 14.12.2018. Likewise, reliance of the learned Single Judge upon order dated 13.12.2021 passed in W.P. No.44782 of 2020, titled Muhammad Ashiq & others v. Chief Engineer, Pak P.W.D., Lahore and others, is also distinguishable on facts, as the claim in that case rested upon the upgradation of comparable posts of Auditors in other department(s) involving similar duties.

Whereas the posts of Statistical Assistant and Assistant, subject matter of these appeals, are distinct in terms of their nature of duties and responsibilities. It appears that, for want of proper assistance, these material distinctions escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge, who did not independently examine the applicability of the cited decisions with reference to the relevant service rules, prescribed qualifications, nature of duties and cadre

structure. Mere upgradation of one category of employees, whether pursuant to a judicial pronouncement or otherwise, does not confer an automatic right upon another category of employees to claim similar treatment unless parity in all material respects is established. Consequently, the aforesaid decisions could not have been made the basis for extending the same benefit to the respondents without first determining whether their cases stood on an equal footing with those of the employees concerned in the cited judgments..

12.It is equally true that the financial and administrative consequences of upgradation cannot be disregarded.

Determination of the appropriate pay scale for a particular post requires examination of the entire service structure and its impact upon other cadres. Such an exercise is ordinarily entrusted to the competent administrative and financial authorities. Judicial interference in this sphere is permissible where a decision is demonstrated to be contrary to law or suffers from arbitrariness or discrimination, but not merely because another policy decision may appear more beneficial to the employees concerned. No sufficient ground has been established in the present cases for directing the appellants to treat the posts of Statistical Assistant at par with those of Assistant.

13.For the foregoing reasons, both the Intra Court Appeals are allowed, impugned orders dated 07.11.2022, passed in W.P. No.

20655 of 2022, and 06.03.2023, passed in W.P. No. 17689 of 2021, are set-aside and the said Writ Petitions stand dismissed.

However, nothing in this judgment shall preclude the competent authority from considering the question of further upgradation of the posts of Statistical Assistant, if otherwise warranted under the applicable policy and rules.

(Ahmad Nadeem Arshad) (Shireen Imran) Judge Judge

Approved for Reporting.

Judge Judge

GR*