THE SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ISLAMABAD vs TARIQ MANSOOR — 2026 PLC(CS) 862 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2026 PLC(CS) 862 SUPREME-COURT
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year: 2026
Reporter: PLC
Parties: THE SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ISLAMABAD vs TARIQ MANSOOR
Subject matter: Service

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

THE SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ISLAMABAD VS TARIQ MANSOOR. Advance increments on higher qualification---Entitlement---Determination---Applicability of 'incentive schemes'---Audit department officer holding LLB---Eligibility---Briefly, respondent was serving as an accounts officer in the 'audit department' of Pakistan Railways---He acquired an LLB degree in 1992 and thereafter sought grant of two advance increments under the incentive scheme for railways officers and subordinates, 1966, and the 'general scheme for grant of advance increments, 1996'---Respondent's representation was rejected by the finance department on the ground that the 1966 Scheme had been abolished and that his qualification did not fall within the 1996 Scheme, whereupon the Federal Service Tribunal allowed his claim under the 1966 Scheme---The issue requiring determination before the Supreme Court was “whether the accounts officer of the 'audit department' holding an LLB degree was legally entitled to advance increments under either of the aforesaid schemes?”---Held: No benefit under the Scheme, 1966 had been extended to officers of the audit department, and an LLB qualification was not recognized under the General Scheme, 1996, therefore, the respondent's case did not fall within the scope of either scheme---The benefit extended by the Service Tribunal under the Scheme, 1966 was thus unsustainable---Moreover, an LLB degree was not equivalent to a master's degree---Respondent was not entitled to advance increments under either of the schemes---Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC

2026 PLC(CS) 253 SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-ISLAMABADMUHAMMAD SHABBIR VS REGISTRAR, ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT. Delegation of authority---Scope---Where the Constitution or the law does not itself pro…
2026 PLC(CS) 132 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRRaja TARIQ AZIZ VS AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR. S. 4---appeal before the Service Tribunal, filing of---Limitation---ap…
2026 PLC(CS) 132 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRRaja TARIQ AZIZ VS AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR. S. 4---appeal before the Service Tribunal, filing of---Locus standi---…
2026 PLC 107 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURTEMPLOYEES OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION, LAHORE VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Beneficial legislation---Scope---Social welfare and beneficial statutes m…
2026 PLC 107 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURTEMPLOYEES OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION, LAHORE VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Ss. 22(1)(b), 22a & Sched., Clause 1---Employees' old-age benefits---Roun…
2026 PLC 107 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURTEMPLOYEES OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION, LAHORE VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Preamble---Provisions of Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 have been…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English