2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners joined service of respondent No.2 and retired on 1-12-2005, 9-5-2005 and 28-3-2008. They applied for pensionary benefits to respondent No.2 but same were refused, through the instant writ petition they have challenged the refusal of their pensionary benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Federal Service Tribunal as well as the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has allowed pensionary benefits to Raja Tassadaq Hussain, retired Deputy Director of respondent No.2 (National Language Authority, Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Division) and on the same analogy and principle the petitioners are also entitled for same benefit being employee of the same department. The learned counsel has also placed judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal on the file.

3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondents Nos.1 and 2 have submitted their separate parawise comments wherein respondent No.2 has conceded the claim of the petitioners whereas respondent No.1 has contested the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not eligible for grant of pensionary benefits as they have not completed 25 years service in the department, however, respondent No.1 has also admitted the grant of pensionary relief grant to said Raja Tassadaq under the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court.

4. Learned D.A.-G. while reiterating the stand taken by respondent No.1 in their parawise comments also contended that Ministry of Finance through its Secretary is necessary and proper party and without impleading the said Ministry the writ petition is not proceedable.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal and the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, it is an established position that one of the employees of respondent No.2 was granted pensionary relief and the same was implemented by respondent No.2. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185 observed as under:

"If the Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates and rule of good, governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by Service Tribunal/Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal or any other forum." The above said principle was again examined in Khawaja Abdul Hameed Nasir and others v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2003 SCMR 1030 and Federation of Pakistan and others v. Qamar Hussain Bhatti PLD 2004 SC

77. In view of above settled law and also the principles enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which guarantees the equal protection of law, amongst the persons who were equally placed and fall under the same category are entitled for the same benefit, therefore, I am persuaded to hold that the petitioners of the instant writ petition are also entitled to grant of pensionary benefits from the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 raised an objection that the petitioners have not completed 25 years in the service, therefore, they are not entitled to any pensionary relief. This question was examined by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mir Ahmad Khan v. Secretary to Government and others 1997 SCMR 1477 as follows:-- "Admittedly the appellant put in more than ten years temporary service before his services were terminated, he was therefore, entitled to pensionary benefits under Regulation 371-A(i) of Civil Service Regulations. It appears that this provision of the Civil Service Regulations was not cited before the Tribunal otherwise the observation to the contrary could not have been made in the impugned judgment." In view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and admitted position that one of the employees of respondent No.2 has already been given pensionary relief, the petitioners are also entitled to the said relief. Consequently, the writ petition is accepted and respondent No.2 is directed to grant pensionary relief to the petitioners. H.B.T./G-7/Isl. Petition accepted.