1989 PLP 709 (PLC(CS))

Saifullah Khan for Appellants. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th June, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision dated 28‑1‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the respondent has been accepted and he has been directed to be paid his pay plus 55% running allowance for the period of 180 days by way of encashment of L.P.R.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited notification copy of which is Exh.R‑1 and Rule 17(4) Leave Rules given in N.L.R. 1980 and has argued that only pay and not 55% running allowance is to be paid to the persons who do not avail of L.P.R. and want to get the L.P.R. encashed. The line of the argument of the learned counsel is that m the notification copy of which is Exh.R‑1 and in Rule 17(4) the word `leave pay' is used and only the senior post allowance has been allowed to be paid during the leave. He argues that pay does not include wages, therefore, the appellant rightly did not allow 55% running allowance to the respondent and that the learned lower Court erred in allowing the grievance petition. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant to Fundamental Rule 9‑[2003(21)(a)(iii)] of Establishment Code Part II appearing at page No. 50 and has argued that according to the said Rule only those allowances are allowed which the Governor may have included in the definition of pay. He further argues that no notification of the Government has been shown by the respondent whereby 55% running allowance may have been included in the definition of `pay'. He also argues that average pay is defined in Rule 707(5) of Establishment Code Part‑1 appearing at page No. 70 which includes 55% running allowance but argues that since the respondent cannot be said to be on duty and was on L.P.R., therefore, he was not entitled to 55% running allowance. The Rule cited by the learned counsel goes against the Railways. It is provided that 55% running allowance will also form part of the average pay in the case of persons belonging to running staff. Since a retired person who elects not to avail of L.P.R. remains on duty it cannot be said that he gives duty in the ordinary manner. He gives duty since he wishes to get salary by way of encashment of L.P.R. to the extent of 180 days according to the Rules. So the respondent is entitled to‑55% running allowance even under Rule 707(5) appearing at pages Nos. 70 and 71 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Vol.

1. So far as the persons who elect not to avail of L.P.R. are concerned they are covered by a special notification meant for them which is P.R. Gazette No. 12, dated 15‑6‑1987. Its item No. 41 is relevant which reads as under:-- "ENCASHMENT OF LT.R. BENEFITS: It has been decided that 55% running allowance may be allowed to the running staff for encashment of L.P.R. benefits in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time on the subject." It is thus clear that the respondent is entitled to 55% running allowance. Item No. 41 also shows that besides the Notification No. 12 referred to above there are previous instructions also issued by the Railway Department to the effect that while allowing encashment of L.P.R. 55 %running allowance should also be allowed. In these circumstances the learned lower Court rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondent directing that besides his usual pay he is entitled to 55% running allowance also towards encashment of L.P.R. to the extent of 180 days.

3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. AA./557/Lb. P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.