In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, HCJ. 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2014 
(on appeal from the judgment of the 
Islamabad High Court, Islamabad dated 
17.09.2013 passed in ICA-872 of 2013) 
 
Government of Pakistan M/o Railways, through its Secretary, etc 
…Appellants 
VERSUS  
Jamshed Hussain Cheema & others 
 
 
…Respondents 
 
For the appellants:  
Rai Muhammad Nawaz Khan Kharal, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the respondents: 
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhindar, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
07.12.2015 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C.J. – This civil appeal with leave of 
the Court is directed against the judgment dated 17.9.2013, in Intra 
Court Appeal No.872/2013, passed by the learned Division Bench of the 
Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, whereby the said Intra Court Appeal 
at the instance of present appellants was dismissed, and consequently 
the judgment dated 20.5.2013, passed by learned single Judge in 
chambers of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petition 
No.975/2011, filed by respondents, thereby granting them requisite 
relief, was maintained. 
C.A No.308/2014. 
2
2. 
Briefly stated, relevant facts of the case are that in the 
month of March 2011, the respondents No.1 to 20 (in short “the 
respondents”) had instituted the above referred writ petition under 
Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 
with the grievance of discrimination in the matter of upgradation of 
their posts as against other employees of the appellants in different 
categories and in that context they had prayed for following reliefs:- 
 
“In view of the above circumstances, it is, therefore, most 
respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be 
accepted and the act of the respondents not to upgrade the scales of 
the petitioners may graciously be declared as illegal, unlawful, 
ineffective and inoperative upon the rights of the petitioners and 
direction may graciously be issued to the respondents to upgrade the 
post of Claim Inspector BS-13 to the BS-16, which is in the interest of 
justice.” 
3. 
In the parawise comments submitted by the appellants 
before the Islamabad High Court, the maintainability of the writ petition 
was challenged on various legal grounds. On facts also, claim of 
respondents was challenged, inter alia, on the plea that they have been 
also upgraded one scale from BS-12 to BS-13, duly approved by the 
competent authority. Thus, there was no occasion of any discrimination 
in this regard, as those who were given upgradation in scales by more 
than one step were in different categories than the respondents.  
4. 
The petition was heard by a learned single Judge in the 
Islamabad High Court and it was allowed vide judgment dated 
20.5.2013 with directions to the appellants to initiate process for 
upgradation of posts of Claim Inspectors/respondents, keeping in view 
C.A No.308/2014. 
3
the earlier recommendations, and such process be completed within 
two months. 
5. 
Being dissatisfied by the above judgment, Intra Court 
Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, was filed 
by the appellants, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment, as the 
learned Division Bench endorsed the view of the learned single Judge 
contained in his impugned judgment. 
6. 
Leave to appeal was granted in this case, inter alia, to 
examine whether the private respondents, being civil servants, could 
have invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as regards their 
grievance, which according to learned ASC for the appellants, related to 
terms and conditions of their service. Today, when the learned ASC for 
the appellants was confronted with the ratio of judgment in the case of 
Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456), relating to 
concept of upgradation of posts, he candidly did not dispute the legal 
position that upgradation to higher scale is not equivalent to promotion 
and no concept of upgradation, as one of the terms and conditions of 
service, was provided under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Therefore, for 
any grievance with reference to upgradation, remedy was not available 
to the respondents before the Service Tribunal. However, he forcefully 
argued that upgradation of scales was purely a policy decision, which 
was to be taken by the competent authority with the approval of the 
Government and in this regard the decision of the competent authority 
regarding upgradation of different employees of the appellants was 
C.A No.308/2014. 
4
final and it could not be interfered with by the Court, as has been done 
in the instant case by both the Courts below. 
7. 
Conversely, Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhindar, learned ASC 
for the private respondents made reference to the  concise statement 
submitted by him on behalf of respondents, which is accompanied with 
a chart to show the manner in which some other employees of the 
appellants in different other categories have been given upgraded 
scales, in some cases up to five steps, though the present respondents 
have been given upgradation only by one step.  
8. 
We have considered the above submissions and with the 
assistance of learned ASCs, perused the material placed on record, 
which reveals that a policy decision has been taken by the competent 
authority with the approval of Federal Government for upgradation of 
pay scales of different categories of its employees in a conscious 
manner, looking to the nature of their jobs etc, therefore, such decision 
cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction on the purported plea of 
discrimination. More so, when Article 25 of the Constitution itself 
provides a provision for such discrimination on the principle of 
reasonable classification. In the present case, respondents have also 
been granted upgradation by one step from BS-12 to BS-13 alongwith 
many others, who have been also given only one step upgradation in 
the scales and in many other cases upgradation is allowed by two steps. 
Thus, such classification/categorization by the competent authority 
cannot be struck down on the plea of discrimination, at the whims of 
respondents, who had approached the Islamabad High Court in this 
C.A No.308/2014. 
5
regard. In addition to it, learned ASC for the respondents has also failed 
to show that due to the impugned action of the appellants any 
fundamental rights of the respondents have been violated or they have 
any vested right for such upgradation as per their choice. If any case law 
is needed to fortify the above view, reference can be made to the 
following cases:- 
Case law. 
9. 
Foregoing are the reasons for our short order, which reads 
thus:-  
 
“We have heard arguments of the learned ASCs for both 
parties. For reasons to be recorded separately, this appeal is allowed. 
The impugned judgment dated 17.09.2013, passed by the learned 
Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court in Intra Court Appeal 
No.872 of 2013 and judgment dated 20.05.2013, passed by the 
learned single Judge in Chambers of the Islamabad High Court in Writ 
Petition No.975 of 2011, are set aside, and the Writ Petition filed by 
Respondents No.1 to 20 is accordingly dismissed.  
2. 
 
At this stage, learned ASC for appellant has clarified 
that Respondents Nos. 1 to 20 have been earlier upgraded to Scale-
13, therefore, he will ensure payment of their salaries along with 
arrears, if any, from the date of their upgradation in Scale-13. 
Moreover, if need be, their cases for further upgradation will also be 
considered. Order accordingly.” 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, 
07th December, 2015. 
Not approved for reporting. 
تﻗادﺻ 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
