1999 PLP 2475 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHM'AN KHAN, J.

This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 184-P 288-P, 292-P, 305-P, 306-P and 307 P of 1996 as the question of admissibility of Secretariat Allowance is involved in all these petitions.

2. The employees of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar, Office of the Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Civil Courts and Sessions Court at Peshawar, Lahore Court Peshawar and office of the Solicitor, Government of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, filed Constitution Petitions Nos. 530 of 1992, 84 of 1992, 870 of 1992, 12 of 1993, 1162 of 1994 and 474 of 1992 respectively, claiming that they are entitled to Secretariat Allowance at the rate of 20% of the basic pay which has been allowed to all Government Servants working in the secretariat in accordance with Letter/Circular No. FD(SA-II)2 43, dated 15-7-1987, w.e.f. 1-7-1987. Writ Petition No. 530 of 1992 filed by the employees of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was allowed vide judgment dated 31-3-1996 by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, while the writ petitions filed by the employees of the other departments mentioned above were allowed vide judgment dated 29-5-1996 relying on the judgment dated 31-3-1996 passed in the case of the employees of the Lahore Appellate Tribunal and the judgment of this Court reported as Government of the Punjab through Secretary Finance Department, Lahore v. Mubarik Ali Khan and 8 others (PLD 1993 SC 375).

3. Learned counsel for the caveators in the Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 184-P of 1996, 288-P of 1996 and 305-P of 1996 submitted that the disputed allowance is being paid to the employees since 1-1-1994 in pursuance to the interim order passed in the writ petition and, thus, the dispute virtually relates to payment of the allowance for the period prior to afores4id date commencing form 1-7-1987.

4. Mr. Talat Qayyum Qureshi, Learned Additional Advocate-General appearing in support of the petitions argued that the Secretariat Allowance was allowed to the employees working in the N.-W.F.P. Secretariat; Chief Minister's Secretariat and the Governor's Secretariat. The same is, therefore, not admissible to the employees of the attached departments or the employees of the. other offices like the respondents writ petitioners. The pleas which were taken before the Court were repeated.

5. The controversy stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Mubarik Ali Khan (supra) wherein this Court repelled these very arguments with the observations that no material was placed before this Court or before any of the High Courts showing any reasons whatsoever for the re emergence of categories of Secretariat and non-Secretariat employees and for assimilating certain non-Secretariat Offices as Secretariat Offices for the purpose of allowance in question and that in the absence of any reason forthcoming on the record after the enforcement of the Unified Pay Scales to all categories of employees, such a reversion to old categories would appear to be discriminatory. This Court further observed in the matter as under:-- "The legal question that in the matter of pension and pay no such discrimination can take place has been answered by this Court in I. A Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, 'Finance Division and others (1991 SCMR 1041). The factual question of equivalence of the duties, responsibilities, confidentialities etc. is ordinarily not a fit subject for adjudication by the High Court but has to be determined initially by a full-fledged exercise to be undertaken by the National Pay Commission, as such."

6. Learned Judges of the High Court were, therefore, right in holding that the respondents employees were also entitled to receive the benefits of the letter/circular dated 15-7-1987 with effect from 1-7-1987. No case for leave to appeal is, therefore, made out and all the petitions are dismissed. H.B.T./G-40/S Petition dismissed.