BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT

MULTAN BENCH MULTAN

Abdul Raouf S/o Abdul Sattar Ex- AEO Markaz Pirhar Gharbi Female, Tehsil Kot
Adu, District Muzaffargarh, School Education Department Government of Punjab.
PETTIONER
VERSUS

1. Govt. of the Punjab through Secretary School Education Department,

Lahore.
2. The Secretary Finance Department Punjab, Lahore.
3. The Accountant General Punjab, Lahore.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh.
5. The Chief Executive Officer (DEA) Muzaffargarh.
6. District Account Officer, Muzaffargarh.
Respondents

WRIT PETTION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUITION OF ISLAMIC

REPUBLIC OF PKISTAN 1973.
RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-
1. That name and addresses of the parties have correctly been given in the head
note of this writ petition and are sufficient for the purpose of effecting services
and all other allied communications to service the summons to the parties.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filling of this instant writ petition are precisely
submitted that the petitioner was inducted through NTS recruitment test in the
School Education department Govt. Punjab under District Education Authority,
Muzaffargarh on dated 06.07.2017 as Assistant Education officer and was
posted as AEO (Assistant Education officer) Markaz Pirhar Gharbi Female, Tehsil
Kot Adu. As per contract of service, the petitioner was entitled to withdraw Bs-
16 Salary and prevailing inspection allowances approved by the School
Education Department. Contract of Service is attached as Annexure-A
3. That AEOS were initially entitled to get inspection allowance Rs.10000/: per
month which was latter on enhanced to Rs. 25000/: per month for AEOs
selected through NTS Recruitment Test (Competitive mode of recruitment)
whereas, said allowance was kept fix to Rs. 10000/: per month for AEOs
appointed without NTS Test (Non- Competitive mode of recruitment) through
School Education Department notification No. S.O(Budget)-15/2013(Vol-II)
dated 25-10-2016 and Punjab Finance Department Memo No.FD(W&M)1-
 31/2015-16/310 dated 14-03-2016. Copies of the said notification and budget
summary are attached as Annexure-B & Annexure-C
4. That the petitioner was given his first salary on 01-09-2017 with inspection
allowance of Rs. 10000/ per month only. On enquiry from the District Account
Officer, Muzaffargarh and Chief Executive Officer DEA Muzaffargarh, Petitioner
was informed that additional 15000/- per month of inspection allowance
requires a wage code in SAP system and AEOs Will be given arrears of inspection
allowances, once SAP system was updated .
5. That on 26-12-2017 the petitioner was selected as Senior Auditor through
Federal Public Service Commission in the office of Director General Audit PT&T
Lahore. The relieving Report from Education Department and appointment
order and Joining Report in the Office of DG, Audit PT&T are attached as
Annexure-D & Annexure-F
6. That on the date of relieving from Education Department the petitioner was
entitled to receive an arrears of Rs. 81250/: compounded due to non-payment
of inspection allowance Rs.15000/- per month from 06-07-2017 the date of
joining to 26-12-2017 the date of relieving from the Education Department. The
calculation of the arrears is attached as Annexure-G
7. That even after relieving from the Education Department petitioner’s salary was
not stopped by the District Account Office and the petitioner was credited/paid
an over payment of Rs. 78000/- Approximately.
8. That for the purpose of getting salary from the Office of DG, Audit PT&T
petitioner had requested the District Account Officer, Muzaffargarh to issue LPC
(Last Payment certificate) and may transfer petitioner’s payroll data from
Education Department cost center to the DG, Audit PT&T cost center. The
petitioner had also requested District Account Officer that he may kindly adjust
over payment of Rs. 78000/- Approximately against arrears of Rs. 81250/:
compounded due to non-payment of inspection allowance of Rs.15000/- per
month from 06-07-2017 the date of joining to 26-12-2017 the date of relieving
from the Education Department. But the request was turned downed by the
District Account Officer on the ground that notification No. S.O (Budget)-
15/2013(Vol-II) dated 25-10-2016 by which AEOs were entitled to get inspection
allowance of Rs. 25000/- per month was withdrawn by the School Education
 Department through its notification No. S.O (Budget-1)1-15/2013(Vol-I) dated
03-01-2018. The said notification is attached as Annexure-H
9. That the said withdrawal of inspection allowance was reinstated through
notification No. S.O (Budget)-15/2013(Vol-II) dated 24-01-2018 issued by S.O
(SR-1) Punjab Finance Department. The said notification is attached as
Annexure-I. Initial withdrawal of notification No. S.O (Budget)-15/2013(Vol-II)
and its subsequent re-issuance was to correct the anomaly of two different
inspection allowance for two categories of AEOs i.e AEOs selected through NTS
Recruitment Test (Competitive mode of recruitment) and AEOs appointed
without NTS Test (Non- Competitive mode of recruitment). Core intention of the
withdrawal of the said notification by the quarter concerned was to correct
disparity of salary amongst both types of AEOs.
10. That petitioner requested again to District Account officer for the adjustment
of over payment of Rs. 78000/- Approximately against arrears of Rs. 81250/:
compounded due to non-payment of inspection allowance Rs.15000/- per
month from 06-07-2017 the date of joining to 26-12-2017 the date of relieving
from the Education Department and to issue LPC so that the petitioner may
draw his salary from his new office. But the request was denied again on the
ground that notification No. S.O (Budget)-15/2013(Vol-II) dated 24-01-2018
issued by S.O (SR-1) Punjab Finance Department, enabling AEOs to withdraw
inspection allowance Rs. 25000/- per month was applicable from the date of its
issuance to onward and it had no retrospective effect.
11.That self-contemplated narration of District Account officer about the
notification No. S.O (Budget)-15/2013(Vol-II) dated 24-01-2018 issued by S.O
(SR-1) Punjab Finance Department is False and baseless. No such instructions
were given to him by School Education Department and Punjab Finance
Department. The withdrawal and subsequent re-issuance of the said
notification was meant to correct a wrong previously conceived. Notification
No. S.O (Budget)-15/2013(Vol-II) dated 24-01-2018 was infect a modification to
the notification No. S.O(Budget)-15/2013(Vol-II) dated 25-10-2016 to make an
equal amount inspection allowance allowed to both types of AEOs. Instead of
considering withdrawal and re-issuance of said notification a continuation, the
District Account Officer Muzaffargarh had contemplated it a separate issue
which had caused grave suffering to the petitioner.
12. That in Writ petition No. 665/2018 Lahore high court, Rawalpindi Bench
Rawalpindi, Khurram Shahzad vs Government of Punjab through Secretary
School Education Department etc, issue of withdrawal of the said notification
and its subsequent re-issuance had clearly been explained and submitted by the
Government of Punjab. Through learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Government of Punjab had submitted that withdrawal of the notification was to
correct the wrong previously done. And that this withdrawl had not meant any
withdrawal of the allowance and re-issuance of the said notification on dated
24-01-2018 is continuation of the original notification to remove the disparity
amongst both types of AEOs. Copy of the decision of W.P No. 665/2018 is
attached as Annexure-J.
13. That District Account Officer, Muzaffargarh is neither issuing LPC nor he is
transferring petitioner’s payroll record to the concerned cost center. This act of
District Account officer has deprived of the petitioner to get salary from his new
office for last 5 month. The petitioner is posted in Lahore, far away from his
home. It has become impossible for the petitioner to feed himself and to
perform his duty without getting salary for such longer period of time.
14. That District Account officer is bond to issue LPC and to transfer the
petitioner’s payroll record to the concerned cost center even if some dues are
recoverable from the petitioner. DDOs Hand Book Rules and other financial
Rules give the liberty to the petitioner to carry recoveries due from him
incorporated in LPC and the same may be adjusted against his salary from the
office where he has been transferred. Despite from this clear practice District
Account Officer is neither adjusting recoveries, due from the petitioner, against
arrears of Rs. 81250/: compounded due to non-payment of inspection
allowance Rs.15000/- per month from 06-07-2017 the date of joining to 26-12-
2017 the date of relieving from the Education Department nor he is carrying
forward recoveries of Rs. 78000/- Approximately incorporated in LPC so that the
same may be adjusted against petitioner’s salary from the office where he has
been transferred. Copy of the LPC Rules is attached as Annexure-K.
15.That there is no provision of stoppage of salary in service laws and if the
employee is made to work without payment of salary it would be against the
injunctions of Islam, which envisages payment of wages before sweat of toil is
dried up. That the petitioner ran pillar to the post for the redressal of the
 grievance but the voice of the petitioner was not heard in deaf corridors of
powers and no one is ready to turn his deaf ear to the suffering and strikes of
the petitioner, the petitioner beg for the special indulgence of this honorable
court.

That there is no alternative and officious speedy remedy available to the petitioner
except to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. Hence this petition the
following amongst other

Grounds

a. That the act of causing stoppage of salary, with non-issuance LPC, and forcing
Petitioner to work without getting paid is violation of the principles of policy
contained in Chapter 2 part-II of the constitution and also Article 3 of the
Constitution, which cost duty on the state to eliminate all forms of
exploitation.
b. That the self-assumed narration of the notifications by the respondent No. 6
is motivated, stinking, unlawful, illegal, unwarranted and have no force in the
eye of law.
c. That in other district of Province Punjab, the said arrears have been given to
the AEOs recruited in 2016. Denial from giving arrears to the petitioner by
the respondent No. 6 is an act of discrimination on the part of respondent.
d. Deprival from to get the lawful arrears of the remuneration and Stoppage of
salary by hindering in issuance of LPC by the respondents have caused the
petitioner to suffer a great deal of financial suffering and resulted in
starvation of the petitioner which is violation of Article 38 of the
Constitution, which cost duty on the state to promote social and economic
well-being of the people.
Prayer
It is respectfully prayed that Respondent No. 6 may kindly be directed to
issue LPC and to transfer payroll’s data to the AGPR. It is also prayed that other
Respondents may kindly be directed to Instruct to District Account Officer,
Muzaffargarh to credit the arrears of inspection allowances from date of joining to
the date of relieving of the petitioner from the Education Department as per
notification No. S.O (Budget)-15/2013(Vol-II) dated 25-10-2016 and as per
submission of respondents explained in W.P No. 665/2018. Meanwhile, no
recovery of overpayment or any other coercive measure be made from petitioner
new job’s salary during pendency of this writ petition.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

MUHAMMAD TOUSIF IMRAN BHUTTA

Advocate High Court

Certificate:-
That this first Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court on the subject matter as per
instruction of the client.