IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020.  
(Against the judgments dated 07.02.2018, 20.06.2019, 
19.09.2019, 21.11.2019, 30.10.2019 and 24.10.2019 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and 
Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench in Writ Petitions 
No.2243-P/17, 4328-P/18, 1472-A/18, 4595-P/17, 3952-
P/18 and 4397-P/2019). 
  
 
Province of K.P. through Chief Secretary,  
Peshawar and others. 
(in CAs.188, 189, 192 & 193 of 2020) 
 
Government of K.P., Ministry of Finance through Secretary 
Finance Department, Peshawar and others.  
(in CA.190/2020) 
 
Government of K.P., through Secretary Culture and Museum 
Department, Peshawar and others.  
(in CA.191/2020) 
 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
Versus 
 
Farasatullah. 
(in CA.188/2020) 
 
Muhammad Adeel Qureshi and others.  
(in CA.189/2020) 
 
Waqif Khan. 
(in CA.190/2020) 
 
Mst. Samina Behram and others.  
(in CA.191/2020) 
 
Sajid Khan and others.  
(in CA.192/2020) 
 
Raheel Ahmad and others.  
(in CA.193/2020) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi,  
Addl. A. G. KP. 
 
Mian Saadullah Jandoli, AOR 
(absent) 
 
Mr. Shafiullah, Deputy Director 
(Legal). 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Imran, Deputy Director, 
Agriculture 
 
Mr. M. Arif, L.O., Archaeology. 
 
Tauheed Iqbal, A.D. and 
M. Ilyas Khan (Sr. Statistician) 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Khalid Rehman, ASC. 
 
(in CA.189/20) 
 
 
Mir Afzal Malik, ASC 
 
(in CA.193/20) 
 
 
M.Adeel Qureshi, Sajid Khan, 
and Ehtasham (all in person) 
 
 
Nemo (in other cases).  
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
15.07.2020.  
 
  
 JUDGMENT  
 
 
 
IJAZ 
UL 
AHSAN, 
J.- 
Through 
this 
single 
judgment, we propose to decide Civil Appeals No.188, 189, 
190, 191, 192 and 193 of 2020 as common questions of law 
are involved in this matter.  
 
2. 
 
Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide its 
order dated 02.03.2020 which for ease of reference is 
reproduced below: 
 
“Learned 
Additional 
Advocate 
General, 
KP 
contends that the respondents, who were holding 
the LLM Degree have claimed M.Phil allowance by 
filing of a writ petition on the basis of 
equivalence. He contends that such being the 
matter relating to the terms and conditions of 
service, the writ petition filed by the respondents 
in the Peshawar High Court was patently barred 
in terms of Article 212 of the Constitution and the 
High Court was not competent to entertain the 
writ petition. He further contends that the M.Phil 
allowance was given specifically to the employees 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
who 
possessed 
M.Phil 
Degree 
and 
such 
allowance could not have been extended to the 
holders of the LLM Degree for he reason that the 
concerned Notification did not provide for the 
same and neither did the University Grants 
Commission 
nor 
the 
Higher 
Education 
Commission have any jurisdiction to grant the 
benefit to the government employees, for that, 
their jurisdiction is only to the extent of granting 
equivalence, 
and 
even 
after 
granting 
the 
equivalence, whether the allowance is to be paid 
or not to be paid to certain employees, only the 
Government is competent to make policy on that, 
which policy could not be interfered with by High 
Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction.  
 
2. 
The contentions raised by the learned AAG 
require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted 
to consider, inter alia, the same. The appeal shall 
be heard on the available record but the parties 
are allowed to file additional documents within a 
period of one month. As the matter relates to 
service, the office is directed to fix the same 
expeditiously, preferably, after three months.” 
   
3. 
 
The main controversy involved in these appeals 
relates to notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the 
Secretary, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance 
Department through which an allowance @ Rs.2500/- per 
month was granted to the employees who held M.Phil degrees. 
The said notification was challenged by the Respondents 
before the Peshawar High Court praying that the Respondents 
may also be granted the M.Phil allowance because they held 
qualification which were equivalent to M.Phil, these included 
employees having LLM degrees and MS degrees in Agriculture 
etc. The High Court allowed the petitions and directed the 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellants to grant M.Phil allowance to all employees who 
held any degree equivalent to M.Phil i.e. LLM and MS in 
Agriculture from the date of acquiring such degree. The High 
Court based its judgment on a letter of the University Grants 
Commission (UGC) dated 23.08.2000 stating that Master of 
Law degree was equivalent to M.Phil.  
 
4. 
 
The learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa submits that in the first place University 
Grants Commission and Higher Education Commission do 
not have the mandate either to interpret notifications issued 
by the various Governments nor to direct or advise the 
Government to give financial benefits on the basis of 
equivalence certificates as has been done by it vide its letter 
dated 23.05.2017. He maintains that the mandate of Higher 
Education Commission in terms of Section 10 of the Higher 
Education 
Commission 
Ordinance, 
2002 
is 
to 
grant 
equivalence certificates only for the purposes of determining 
academic equivalence with reference to time spent in 
pursuing a degree or for getting admission for further 
education. Further, he maintains that even according to its 
own position as reflected in its letter dated 28.11.2016 an 
equivalence certificate issued by the Higher Education 
Commission does not guarantee admission in a University for 
further education and determination of suitability in relation 
to job requirements which decision rests with the concerned 
University and employing agency and that Commission has 
no role in such matters. He further maintains that the law 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
does not confer any power in the Higher Education 
Commission to recommend payment of allowances or other 
financial benefits. He argues that the learned High Court 
misdirected itself and misinterpreted not only the law but also 
its purpose, scope and intent and its reliance on different 
certificates/letters 
issued 
by 
the 
Higher 
Education 
Commission in granting relief was clearly misplaced.  
 
5. 
 
The learned counsel for the Respondents, on the 
other hands, submits that once the Higher Education 
Commission 
grants 
an 
equivalence 
certificate 
to 
any 
qualification/degree, the holder of such qualification/degree 
automatically 
becomes 
entitled 
to 
grant 
of 
allowances/benefits which have been granted to holders of 
equivalent degrees/qualifications. It is further argued that the 
Governments of the Provinces of Punjab, Sindh and 
Balochistan have issued similar circulars and provided 
similar allowances and it is only the Government of Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa which is refusing to do so. This constitutes 
discrimination and the High Court is justified in bringing the 
situation at par with other Provinces.  
 
6. 
 
We have heard the learned Additional Advocate 
General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as well as the learned counsel 
for the Respondents.  
 
7. 
 
It is clear and obvious to us that the language of 
impugned notification 
dated 
14.07.2016 is clear and 
unambiguous and does not admit of any other interpretation. 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For ease of reference, the relevant portion of the notification 
in question is reproduced below: 
 
“Subject:  
GRANT OF M.PHIL ALLOWANCE @ 
2,500/- PER MONTH. 
 
Dear Sir,  
 
 
The Competent Authority, is pleased 
to decided that, all those who acquires / 
possesses the degree of M.Phil recognized by the 
H.E.C. shall be allowed M.Phil allowance @ 25% 
of the existing amount of Ph.d allowance 
(@Rs.2,500/- 
per 
month) 
with 
effect 
from 
01.07.2016 subject to the following conditions: 
 
a) 
M.Phil 
allowance 
will 
not 
be 
admissible to those who are getting 
Ph.D allowance @ Rs.10,000/- per 
month. 
 
b) 
M.Phil 
allowance 
will 
not 
be 
admissible 
to 
those 
who 
have 
already got the benefit of advance 
increments possessing on / acquiring 
M.Phil degree prior to 01.12.2001 
under Finance Department circular 
letter 
No.FD(SR-I)/1-67/82 
dated 
24.08.1983”.  
 
8. 
 
A plain reading of the notification makes its 
abundantly clear: 
 
 
1) 
The intent of the Competent Authority is to 
grant M.Phil allowance @ of existing amount 
of Ph.D allowance @ Rs.2500/- per month; 
2) 
The allowance in question is not admissible 
to those who are already getting Ph.D. 
allowance @ Rs.10,000/- per month; 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3) 
The M.Phil allowance is specifically meant 
for persons who hold M.Phil degrees which 
are recognized by the Higher Education 
Commission; 
 
4) 
It 
is 
not 
expressly 
or 
by 
implication 
mentioned in the notification in question 
that the allowance will be payable to all who 
hold an “M.Phil or equivalent degree”. 
 
9. 
 
The intent and purpose of the Competent 
Authority in granting the incentive is clear and unambiguous 
and there is no room to read something into the notification 
which is not there. The learned counsel for the Respondents 
has not been able to convince us that holders of equivalent 
degrees should also be held entitled to the M.Phil allowance 
which was clearly not the intention of the notification. We 
notice that the High Court was called upon to interpret the 
meaning and scope of the notification however it exceeded its 
jurisdiction by reading additional words into the notification 
which under the facts and circumstances of the present case 
was neither necessary nor required.  
 
10. 
 
The learned counsel for the Respondents has 
heavily relied on a letter dated 23.05.2017 issued by the 
Higher Education Commission, the relevant portion of the 
letter is reproduced below: 
 
“4. 
According 
to 
above 
referred 
Office 
Memorandum of Govt. of Pakistan, Finance 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Division, the M.Phil allowance is granted to those 
only who acquire/possess the degree of M.Phil 
recognized by the HEC. However, in view of the 
above mentioned clarification, all those who have 
M.Phil or MS degrees (18 years schooling) should 
be eligible to draw the allowance @ Rs.2500/- per 
month”.  
 
 
 
11. 
 
We are at a loss to understand how and under 
what authority of law has the Higher Education Commission 
advised that all those who hold M.Phil or MS degrees should 
be eligible to draw Higher Education Commission allowance @ 
Rs.2500/- per month. There is neither power nor authority 
under the Higher Education Ordinance to issue any such 
letter or clarification as the mandate of Higher Education 
Commission is limited only to academic matters and 
determining equivalence for academic reasons.  
 
12. 
 
We are therefore of the view that the Peshawar 
High Court erred in law in relying upon letters issued by the 
Higher 
Education 
Commission/University 
Grants 
Commission (defunct) which was clearly beyond its mandate 
in granting relief to the Respondents.  
 
13. 
 
We are also not impressed by the argument 
advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the 
notification in question is discriminatory in nature in so far 
as it does not grant equal financial benefits to holders of 
equivalent degrees. Further, it is discriminatory because 
similar allowances have been granted by different Provinces 
which have been denied to the Respondents. As far as the 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
first argument is concerned, the same is misconceived. There 
is intelligible differentia between holders of M.Phil degrees 
and those who do not hold such degrees. Holders of M.Phil 
degrees in different disciplines constitute a class by 
themselves and can be granted incentives without offering 
similar incentives to holders of equivalence certificates from 
HEC. To hold otherwise would in effect negate and nullify the 
very concept of the rule of “intelligible differentia”. A class of 
employees who hold M.Phil degrees have been earmarked for 
grant of an allowance which has specifically been called and 
termed as “M.Phil allowance”. All those who fulfil the 
requirement of the notification have been granted the 
allowance and are entitle for the same. It is not the case of the 
Respondents that some of them have M.Phil degrees and have 
been refused or that the employees holding degrees other 
than M.Phil have been allowed the such allowance. In the 
absence of the aforenoted situations the argument of 
discrimination must fail.  
 
14. 
 
As far as the second argument in support of 
discrimination that similar allowances are being offered in 
other Provinces is concerned, the Respondents have produced 
some notifications issued by the Governments of Punjab and 
Government of Sindh to support their contention. However, 
perusal of the notifications produced before us shows that the 
language and terminology used in the said notifications is 
materially and substantially different from the one used in 
the notification issued by the Government of Khyber 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
10
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pakhtunkhwa which is under challenge before us. There 
being no similarity between the two sets of notifications, the 
question of discrimination and the arguments in support 
thereof is misconceived. Even otherwise, if certain actions 
have been done in a certain Province(s) within the powers 
available to them under the Constitution, it is not necessary 
that the same be replicated in all other Provinces. Reference 
in this regard may usefully be made to S.M.C. No.15 of 2010 
and C.M.As. Nos.2689, 3244 of 2010 and CMAs. Nos.5383, 
3068 of 2011 (Suo Motu action regarding Regularization of 
the Contract Employees of Zakat Department as well as 
appointment of Chairman of Central Zakat Council (2013 
SCMR 304) wherein it was held as follows: 
 
 
 
“17.  As regards the question of discrimination, it 
may be pointed out that each Province is 
empowered and entitled to make its own decision 
regarding the subjects that fall within their 
respective domain in accordance with their own 
circumstances. A decision by one Province 
another regarding the matter cannot be cited as 
ground for discrimination if another Province does 
not take the same decision. To hold otherwise 
would be an intrusion into the provincial economy 
of the Provinces. Now that the subject of Zakat 
and Ushr is within the domain of the Provinces, it 
is up to each Provincial Government to decide the 
terms and conditions of the petitioner’s services”.           
 
15. 
 
We are therefore in no manner of doubt that the 
Peshawar High Court incorrectly dealt with the question of 
treating letters issued by the Higher Education Commission 
as the very basis for its direction for payment of M.Phil 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.188 TO 193 OF 2020. 
11
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
allowance to other employees whose degrees had been 
declared equivalent in academic terms to an M.Phil degree. 
Such interpretation is clearly against the intent, purpose and 
plain language of the notification which could not have been 
done and the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in 
doing so. Further, having not found any discrimination on 
any of the grounds asserted by the learned counsel for the 
Respondents, we are of the view that the judgment of the 
High Court is not sustainable on that ground either.  
 
16. 
 
For the reasons recorded above, these appeals are 
allowed and the judgments dated 07.02.2018, 20.06.2019, 
19.09.2019, 30.10.2019, 24.10.2019 and 21.11.2019 of the 
Peshawar High Court are accordingly set aside.     
 
17. 
 
Above are the reasons of our short order dated 
15.07.2020. For ease of reference, the short order is 
reproduced below: 
 
“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties so also the 
respondents who have appeared in person. We are informed by 
Court Associate that all respondents are served. The respondents 
who have not appeared are proceeded ex-parte. For reasons to be 
recorded, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments 
passed by the High Court are set aside.”  
 
Chief Justice  
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD.  
15.07.2020. 
Zubair/* 
‘Not Approved For Reporting’ 
