IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
         (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA. 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN. 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR. 
 
 
 
 
  
Civil Appeals Nos.80-L to 109-L of 2014.  
(Against the judgment dated 28.10.2013 of 
the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed 
in Appeals Nos.2974/12, 2978/12, 2979/12, 
2980/12, 
2981/12, 
2982/12, 
2983/12, 
2984/12, 
2985/12, 
2986/12, 
2988/12, 
2989/12, 
2990/12, 
2991/12, 
2992/12, 
2993/12, 
2994/12, 
2995/12, 
2996/12, 
2997/12, 
2998/12 
,2999/12,3000/12, 
3001/12, 3002/12 and 3003 of 2012) 
 
 
Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore, etc.      …Appellants 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    (in all cases) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Ch. Abdul Sattar Hans.  
Muhammad Ayub. 
Nazam ud Din Anjum. 
Muhammad Ayub Khan. 
Khalid Mahmood (Dy. Accountant). 
Abdul Rauf Khan. 
Atta-ur-Rehman. 
Akhtar Ali. 
Fazal-ur-Rehman. 
Amjad Iqbal. 
Naseem Ullah. 
Ahmad Nadeem. 
Malik Ijaz Ali. 
Rana Zulfiqar Ali. 
Mian Muhammad Khalid. 
Muhammad Shakeel Ahmad. 
Talib Ul Maula. 
Shahid Rafique. 
Muhammad Yasin. 
Muhammad Toufeeq Gill. 
Irfan Ahmad. 
Muhammad Ashraf. 
Zafar Iqbal Awan. 
Mahmood Ahmad Sabri. 
Shahid Younas. 
Malik Qaisar. 
Muhammad Asif. 
Munir Ahmad. 
Asghar Ali. 
Muhammad Javed.  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Respondents 
For the appellants: 
 
Mr. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, AAG 
 
For the respondents:  
Ch. Amir Hussain, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Zar, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
18.03.2015. 
CAs-80-L to 109-L of 2014 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment   
 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.- These appeals are by leave of the Court. The respondents 
are employees of the Provincial Government. Leave to appeal was granted in these 
matters vide order dated 26.3.2014 which is reproduced as under:- 
 
“Refers to a judgment of this Court reported as Muzaffar Khan and 
others Vs. Government of Pakistan and others  (2013 SCMR 304 at page 313 
para 17) to contend that each Province is autonomous under the Constitution 
and is empowered to make its own laws and rules inter alia for civil servants 
and the rules framed either by the Federal Government or the Provincial 
Government cannot be cited to make out a case of discrimination.  
2. 
Ch. Amir Hussain, learned ASC, has appeared for the caveats. He has 
raised a preliminary objection to the effect that these petitions are barred by 
time. Office has not submitted any report, as to whether these petitions are 
barred by time. Let the office make the report in this behalf.  
3. 
Having heard the learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and the 
learned counsel for the respondents at some length, leave to appeal is granted, 
inter alia, to consider whether in accepting the appeals, the learned Tribunal 
kept in view the principle of law that a reasonable classification is permissible 
notwithstanding the mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.” 
 
2. 
We have gone through the impugned judgment rendered by the Chairman, 
Punjab Service Tribunal. He has proceeded on the assumption that Federal Government 
employees and employees of the Provincial Government should receive the same 
emoluments and perquisites if they are performing the same type of duties. This finding 
is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, we have not found any exercise undertaken by the 
Tribunal or indeed any other government functionary which would show that the actual 
work being performed by Sr. Auditors of the Audit Department who are employees of the 
Federal Government is exactly the same as the work being done by the Deputy 
Accountants employed by the Province. Secondly, it has been held by the Service Tribunal 
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 Provincial 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 the Lahore High Court 
2004 PLC(CS) 586 that it is violation of articles 2-A, 3, 25, 37 and 38 of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.” 
CAs-80-L to 109-L of 2014 
3 
The above reproduced observation, however, is also flawed because Article 3 of the 
Constitution has no application in the present case. We may note that the respondents 
who were appellants before the Service Tribunal were not conscripted in service. They 
had joined service voluntarily and had accepted the terms and conditions of service. It is 
evident that they did not compete with the Sr. Auditors (BPS-16) of the Federal 
Government and, therefore, cannot claim that they should be given perks and 
emoluments as the Sr. Auditors of the Federal Government. The question of exploitation 
would only have arisen if the respondents had been forcibly inducted into compulsory 
service. This is not the case and it appears that they had happily joined service and are 
enjoying the benefits of the same.  
3. 
Thirdly, it is important to note that the Provincial Government has to remain 
within its own budgetary constraints. The finding of the Service Tribunal that the “Punjab 
Government will have to bear extra financial burden of Rs.46.44 millions, suffice to say that the 
service structure and financial constraints cannot stand in the way of the Constitution”. This is 
not a tenable position because the amounts paid by way of salaries, are extracted from the 
pockets of citizens by means of taxation. The Province and its Government can genuinely 
come to the conclusion that they are not prepared to burden the people of the Province by 
imposing an extra levy on them. It is not for the Service Tribunal to tell the Government of 
Punjab to impose additional taxes/levies for the purpose of meeting the command of the 
Service Tribunal. We are cognizant that there may still be duties imposed on 
Governments which are absolute and may require allocation or reallocation of financial 
resources with the object of ensuring performance of such duties. In an appropriate case 
this can be examined. However, this case does not raise such issues.  
4. 
It is also important to bear in mind that Article 25 of the Constitution is only 
attracted where there is an apple-to-apple comparison. In the present case, this is not the 
position because both sets of individuals i.e. Sr. Auditors of the Federal Government 
(BPS-16) and Dy. Accountants of the Provincial Government (BPS-14) are not equally 
placed. There is an obvious criterion which differentiates the two categories i.e. they are 
employed by different employers with different financial and other resources. Thus a very 
fundamental issue of federalism has arisen in this case. If the reasoning of the Service 
Tribunal is upheld, tomorrow a Province or the Federation which is more affluent than 
CAs-80-L to 109-L of 2014 
4 
other Provinces and is prepared to raise the salaries of its employees or as a policy decides 
that government servants should be paid according to the market salaries it will not be 
constitutionally permissible for a Court to hold that the Province which is less affluent 
should pay the same emoluments and provide the same perquisites as has been done by 
the more affluent Province. The federation and each of the Provinces exercise 
independent powers as per distribution of powers set out in Chapter 1 of part V of the 
Constitution. This indeed is the essence of a truly federal constitutional structure.  
5. 
In view of the above discussion, we are clear that the impugned judgment of the 
Service Tribunal proceeds on erroneous premises. The same is, therefore, set aside. These 
appeals are allowed.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge  
ISLAMABAD. 
18.03.2015. 
 M. Azhar Malik 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.