A two-member bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that good governance requires institutions to learn from recurring disputes. The ruling was part of a judgment in a service matter involving an additional inspector general (AIG) of Punjab Police and respondents. The bench comprised Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui.
The petitioner, Additional Inspector General of Police, Head of Traffic Police, Punjab, had appealed against the December 20, 2024 order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (Tribunal) whereby the appeal filed by respondents was allowed. According to the case facts, the respondents were initially recruited in the General District Police Cadre. In 1995, Standing Order No.
2 of 1995 restructured the Traffic Police into the Traffic Warden Service Cadre. In 2017, the Traffic Warden System was introduced in Punjab, and the respondents were placed in the Traffic Warden Service Cadre. In 2024, they were transferred back to the Police Cadre, giving rise to the dispute.
The respondents rely on paragraph 7(i) of the Standing Order and Rules 3(7) and 14 of the Punjab Police Traffic Wardens Services Rules, 2017, claiming that they were absorbed into and governed by the Traffic Warden Service Cadre. The petitioners, however, contend that the respondents were never absorbed and remained members of the Police Cadre. The Supreme Court after hearing the case at length dismissed the appeal, holding that no case for interference was made out.
"We find that change of cadre is not covered under the ESTA Code, especially when absorption is explicitly made under the Standing Order," says a 3-page judgment, authored by Justice Ayesha A Malik. The court noted that as per record, the respondents had served in the Traffic Warden Service Cadre for considerable time where they had taken training, traffic orientation courses, traffic lower courses, traffic intermediate course and traffic upper course.
"Therefore, their repatriation to the General District Police Cadre is uncalled for," says the judgment, adding that the tendency to ignore rules and regulations by institution and department gives rise to litigation. The court ruled that good governance requires institutions to learn from recurring disputes.