1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ Appeals No. 169/1627 of 1982 and No. 433/1821 of 1982, have been filed by M/s. Muhammad Islam and 12 others and Muhammad Safdar Ahmad and 18 others, respectively, under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded Government of ‑the Punjab through Secretary Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondents. 2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the decision of the Finance Department, conveyed to the appellants vide letter No.3394/S/V/DI, dated 14th March, 1982 be set aside, and respondent be directed to pay to the appellants special pay of Rs.50 p.m. w.e.f. the date the respondent has allowed this benefit to the Personal Assistant in the Civil Secretariat. 3. As the point of law involved as well as facts are indentical in both these appeals, therefore, we will dispose of these two appeals with our this single judgment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are working as Judgment Writers‑cum‑Personal Assistants in NPS 14 in the Lahore High Court. After coming into force the Pay Revision Rules, 1977, the posts of Personal Assistant carrying special pay were not allowed to carry any special pay, whereas by an amendment in the Pay Revision Rules, the Government of Punjab vide notification, dated 16th May, 1977, granted Special Pay to the Personal Assistants working with the Secretaries to Government of Punjab. The case of the appellants was recommended by their parent office as well as by the Administrative Department to the Finance Department for the grant of special pay but the same was rejected on 2nd January, 1982. Hence these appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the case of the appellants was recommended by the Administrative Department, there was no cause for the Finance Department to ignore the recommendations merely by saying "Finance Department regrets its inability to agree to the A. D's proposal". It has been argued that the jobs to which the appellants are working are arduous than the Personal Assistants attached to the Secretaries on whom special pay of Rs.50 has been bestowed. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, this order was either mala fide or Government have created distinction between the Secretariat and other office even though the High Court is admittedly an 'A' Class Office. He has also referred to the qualifications of the appellants which are not less than the Personal Assistants to the Secretaries to Government of the Punjab and they are inevitably entitled to the grant of special pay. It was further urged that the status of the Judge of the High Court is equal to the status of the Federal Secretary, and, therefore, to deprive the appellants of this benefit on account of their working with the Judges, would be an act totally unjustified. They have also referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in which the Government went in appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan Government of the Punjab v. Ramzan Ali Khan and others P L D 1982 SC 349 their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan were pleased to uphold the judgment of this Tribunal. 6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that it is not for the Department to determine whether the Judgment‑writer is equivalent to the Personal Assistant of the Administrative Secretary or not whereas it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Finance Department to make such rules. Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Business, 1974, makes this position very clear. Undoubtedly there was recommendation, of the Administrative Department in favour of the appellants but the same could not be treated as order of the Government unless accepted by the Finance Department. We are fortified in our above observation by relying on Rule 16 of these rules which are ‑as under:‑ "No Department shall, without previous consultation with the Finance Department, authorise any orders other than orders in pursuance of any general or special delegation made by the Finance Department, which directly or indirectly affected the finances of the Province or which in particular, involves expenditure for which no provision exists or involves a change in the number or grading of posts or terms and conditions of service of Government servants or their statutory rights or privileges which have financial implications." In fact the special pay as defined in rule 2.52 of the C.S.R. Punjab Vol. I, Part I, is an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post of a Government servant granted in consideration of the specially arduous nature of the duties or a specific addition to the work or responsibility or the unhygienic/unhealthiness of the locality in which the work is performed. In view of the above, the case of the appellants would not be covered by the said Rules as such their claim would not be sustainable. We have also examined the stand of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Judge of the High Court has been equated to the Federal Secretary in respect of Pay and Allownaces and find that the High Court would only be an organ of administration of justice in its own jurisdiction whereas the Secretary to the Federal or Provincial Government has its own special jurisdiction, therefore, it will not be possible for us to compare these two func tionaries, keeping in view the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants We have also taken another factor into consideration, when we find that the duties of the Personal Assistant to the Adminis trative Secretary (ies) are different to that of Personal Assistant to the Judge of the High Court. While dealing with this situation we are further impressed by the arguments of the learned District Attorney that the rejection of the claim of the appellants does not in any manner affect their terms and conditions of service as there has been no decrease in their emoluments, what they want something extra which would always be within the prerogative of the Finance Department to grant the same or not, ‑after taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the case. In view of the above, as Finance Department has fully considered the case of the appellants at their own level and have come to the considered decision that the appellants were not justified for extra pay, we hardly feel any justification to interfere with their decision in financial matters. 7. The result is we dismiss the appeals as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.