2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 10-10-2001 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter called as "the Tribunal") whereby Appeal No.724 (R) S-2000 filed by respondent Muhammad Asghar was allowed.

2. The facts precisely, leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the respondent was employed as Stenographer (BS-16) at Rs.5490 in Carriage Factory; Islamabad and retired from there on 4-12-1997 after serving for 30 years. At that time, he was drawing his salary at Rs.5490 plus Rs.300 as an increment in the monthly salary announced by the Prime Minister of Pakistan vide his address, dated 23-2-1997.

3. Thereafter, the respondent was allowed move-over from BS-16 to BS-17 from 1-12-1997 and his pay was fixed at Rs.5620 vide Fixation Notice No.561-E/8-III (I)-move-over, dated 27-9-2000 but the above mentioned increase of Rs.300 was not included in his pay. According to the averments of the respondent before the Tribunal, he was allowed Rs.3tX) as an increase in monthly salary with effect from 1-3-1997 and was drawing tile same till the date of his retirement, dated 4-12-1997. But surprisingly vide the above mentioned fixation notice, the increment of Rs.300 was not included for computing pension and other post retirement benefits. On the contrary, one Muhammad Yousaf was allowed such benefits by the petitioner while implementing the decision, dated 28-12-1998 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.295 (R) of 1998 tiled by him on the same subject-matter.

4. Respondent being aggrieved, preferred departmental appeal, which remained unrespondend, as such, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was accepted vide the impugned judgment.

5. We have heard Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, respondent Muhammad Asghar in person and Ms. Naheeda Mehboob Elahi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of DAG on Court Notice and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

6. At the very outset, respondent pointed out that Muhammad Yousaf, Exh. Superintendent Pakistan Railways, had challenged the very decision of the refusal of inclusion of Rs:300 towards the pensionary benefits before the Tribunal in Service Appeal No.275(R) of 1998 which was allowed on 28-12-1998. The petitioner assailed the said judgment in Civil Petition No.414 of 1999 before this Court but the same was dismissed for non prosecution on 23-2-2000. Accordingly, said Muhammad Yousaf was allowed the increase of Rs.300 in the term "emoluments" reckoning for the purpose of pension but the same relief has been disallowed to him which is a clear discrimination and shows double standard. He placed on record the copy of the said letter, dated 15th September, 1999 issued by Finance Division's Office Memorandum No. F. 4(61) Legal-I of 1999.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner after going through the letter was unable to controvert its contents and frankly conceded the same to be true and issued by the petitioner/department. He mainly insisted that the increase of Rs.300 in the pay was on ad hoc basis, thus being a temporary measure was not included towards reckoning the pensionary benefits.

8. Prime Minister's Secretariat U.O. No. 15(P) PMDIR/931/97, dated 11-3-1997 issued in response to Prime Minister's address to the nation on . 23-2-1997 regarding financial relief to the low paid employees on the face of it does not speak of ad hoc or temporary relief. On the contrary, it mentions that a financial relief of Rs.300 per month was allowed to all the employees from BS-1 to BS-16 with effect from 1-3-1997. Thus it being permanent increase in the pay scale would be reckonable towards the pensionary emoluments. Moreover the order of Muhammad Yousaf referred (supra) was assailed by the petitioner in Civil Petition No.414 of 1999 before this Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23-2-2000. The same attained finality as no application for its restoration was tiled by the petitioner. In response whereof petitioner/department implement the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal and took policy decision and made necessary amendments in the relevant circular vide Officer Memorandum No.3(20) R-2 of 1993, dated 8-9-1999 which was also endorsed by the Finance Division Government of Pakistan vide Office Memorandum No. F.4(61) Legal-I of 1999, dated 15th September, 1999.

9. As a sequel to the above said discussion, we are constrained to observe that the petitioner/department while refusing the relief to the respondent has not only .Aiscriminated but has shown double standard, as such, while maintaining the finding of the Tribunal, we uphold the reckoning of the increase of Rs.300 in the basic pay towards calculating the pensionary emoluments of the respondent.

10. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.B.A./M-802/S Petition dismissed.