1990 CLC 136


Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 article 25 —

Phrase “equal protection of law” envisaged by Article 25 of the Constitution means that no person or class of persons would be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed bypersons or other class of persons in like circusmtances
in respect of their life, liberty, property or pursuit of happiness — Persons similarly situated or in similar circumstances are to be treated in the same manner — Equality of clause forbids, class legislation, but does not forbid
classification which rests upon reasonable classification.
Equality clause, however, does not mean that all laws, must be general in character and universal in application and the State does nothave tghe power to distinguish or classify persons or things for the purpose of legislation — Phrase “equal before law and/or entitled to equal protection of law”, does not mean that it secures to all persons the benefit of the same law but means that all persons similarly situated or circumstanced would be treated alike. Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 3 SCC 503;
Jibendra Kishore Achchariyya Chowdhry v. The Province of East Pakistan PLD 1957 SC 9; Zain Noorani v. Secretary of the National Asembly of Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P) Karachi 1; The State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318; Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The state of Weest Bengal AIR 1953 SC 404; Asgharali Nazarali Singaporewala v. State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 503; Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538; F.b. Ali v. The state PLD 1975 SC 506 and D.S.Nakara v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130. Ref.

Article 121 — Entitlement to benefits of Secretariat Allowance — Protection of Article 121 of the Constitution was
available to employees of High Court Establishment which inter alia provided that administrative expenses, including the remuneration payable to officers and servants of High Court would be expenditure charged upon Provincial Consolidated Fund — Government was directed to pay the benefits of Secretariat Allowance having been found to be admissible to employees of High Court Establishment, would thus be a charge on the Provincial Consolidated Fund — Government was directed to pay the benefits of Secretariat Allowance to Petitioners. [1990 CLC 136]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: