The Punjab Mohtsib has given its decision on 21-01-2014 in connection with the demand for Grant of Pay Scale Instead of Fixed Pay Package to the MEAs on Analogy of other Contract Employees of School Education Department. The detail of this decision is as under:
Mr. Munir Ahmed and other two Monitoring Evaluation Assistants (MEAs) (contract appointees) of the Chief Minister Monitoring Force (Education Department) stated that despite their service form 2004, their fixed Pay Package was not appropriately revised, dearness increases of 2009, 2010 were not allowed and they were not allowed corresponding pay scales, as against the fact that the other contract appointees of the Education Department were awarded corresponding pay scales, in replacement of their fixed pay package. They seek a direction to the Education and Finance Departments to revise their pay package, grant them Pay Scales and remove discrimination, as well as, the MEAs in various Districts of the Punjab were. in receipt or higher rate of pay that may be examined and that rate of pay be allowed to them at Lahore.
Report of the Agency
2. The A.G. Punjab vide report dated 09.10.2013 stated that the complainants were allowed the fixed pay package as per the School Education Department order dated 29.02.20 12. The School Education Department vide report dated 26.01 .2013 stated that fixed pay package was lastly enhanced on 29.02.2012, whereby the Adhoc Relief/Dearness Allowance ie 20% (2009) and 50% (2010) were not admissible. However, in some Districts, the MEAs succeeded to get those increases from the DAOs and their pay was un-authorizedly increased, which was accordingly remedied.
4. In their further report dated 04.12.2013, the School Educational Department interalia, reported that fixed pay package of MEAs was increased by 35%.
5. Joint hearing were held on 06.11.2013 and 26.11.2013. Surprisingly both parties repeated the same arguments. The aggrieved employees reiterated that it was clear case of discrimination and exploitation of weaker and poor helpless segment of the employees. A delegation of these employees was also present during joint hearing.
6. Mr. Umar Atta Bandial Honourable Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No.124/88/2011 field by Rana Ishfaq Ahmed. etc. MEAs vide order dated 13.09.2011 asked the Secretary Education (Schools) and the’ Secretary (Finance) to consider the petition of the petitioners for enhancement of pay as it was allowed to the other staff members in the same project, as well as, to pay their emoluments in accordance with the scales as granted to other staff members, pursuant to letter dated 28.04.2008. Needful was directed to be done within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order dated 13.09.2011.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the Respondents, the petitioner (lshfaq Ahmed) moved contempt petition Crl. Org. 495/2012 in W.P. No.124/M8/2011 which was disposed or by the Honourable Lahore High Court vide order dated 17.05.2012, that the petitioners were aggrieved of the conclusion and result of the impugned order whether the same arrived at a right or wrong conclusion is a matter of substance which is not liable to challenge in the contempt jurisdiction of the Court. By passing the impugned order the direction of the Court stands complied. The petitioners, if so inclined, avail their remedies against the impugned order in accordance with law.
8. It is a fact that the various categories of the contract employees of the Chief Minister’s Monitoring Force, Education Department, Government of the Punjab were allowed pay scales against the fixed pay package with immediate effect vide the Education Department order No. DD(M)8-34/04, dated 28.04.2008, The complainants were also the contract employees of the project of the School Education Department and were entitled to the same treatment as was extended to other employees vide order dated 28.04.2008. There were no solid reasons to refute the demand of the petitioners.
9. The record and performance of these monitoring teams was also examined. It was an admitted fact that the complainants required performance was not less than others. They were qualified for the job and their reported output was outstanding. Based on these reports they stood entitled to the same treatment as was given to others. Non implementation of the same treatment will be maladministration and discrimination as defined under the Ombudsman Act, 1997.
10. The Secretary, School Education Department and the Secretary Finance Department are directed to allow pay scales to the complainant including all those MEAs similarly placed and circumstanced and report compliance to this office within one month from issue of this order as required under Section 11(2) of the O/o Ombudsman Act, 1997.
Special Thanks to Alee Gee for providing the decision copy of this case.