2011 SCMR 313 (PLP)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.

Civil Appeals No.721 of 2009: This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17th June, 2005, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in appeal filed by the respondent.

2. During hearing of the case it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this Court had already decided issue involved in this case in Civil Petition No. 1188-L of 2004 as follows:- "

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. First of all we will decide the status of regulations of the petitioner qua statutory or non-statutory regulations. For this purpose section 54 of the State Bank Act, 1956 is reproduced hereinbelow:- (54) Powers of the Central Board to make regulations. (1) Subject to the approval of the Central Government, the Central Board may make regulations consistent with this Act to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or convenient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. (2) (i) recruitment of officers and servants of the Bank including the terms and conditions of their service, constitution of superannuation, beneficial and other funds, with or without bank's contribution, for the officers and servants of the Bank their welfare providing amenities, medical facilities, grant of loans and advances; their betterment and uplift;

7. The words "subject to the approval of the Federal Government" were framed under section 56 in the year 1999 as regulations were framed under section 56 in the year 1999 as is evident from the source on the basis of which the said regulations were framed which is to the following effect:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 54 of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 (XXXIII of 1956) the Central Board of Directors, hereby makes the following Regulations, to define the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank."

3. In view of the above dictum laid down by this Court learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal of the respondent. In view of his such statement, appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 17-6-2005 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal is set aside.

4. Needless to observe that respondent shall be free to avail remedy before the competent forum because learned counsel pointed out that after the pronouncement of judgment of Mubeen-us-Salam (PLD 2006 SC 602), the respondent approached the Labour Court, Rawalpindi and succeeded in getting the relief vide judgment dated 7-6-2000, against which a writ petition was filed, which was pending. In the meantime, certain aspects of the case of Mubeen-us-Salam (ibid) were explained in the case of Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 681). Therefore, on account of that explanation instant appeal was re-entered and as now the status of State Bank employees has been declared in the petition, the respondent shall be free to seek remedy accordingly. Civil Appeal No.1014 of 2009: This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21-5-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 961 of 2008. As Civil Appeal No. 721 of 2009 in similar circumstances has been disposed of, instant appeal is also disposed of in the above terms. Civil Appeals Nos.1112-1113 of 2009: These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 29-4-2003 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.

5. Brief facts of the case are that respondents retired from the appellant bank under Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme (VGHSS). The grievance of the respondents was that Bank had neither granted them Cash Award nor Silver Medal (Souvenir), admissible to all retired employees. Appeals filed by the respondents before the Service Tribunal were allowed. Hence these appeals.

6. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Civil Petition No. 1188-L of 2004 learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal of the respondent. Judgment passed by the Service Tribunal is set aside. Appeals are allowed. Civil Appeals Nos. 1114-1115 of 2009: These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 4-11-2008 passed by the Islamabad High Court, concluding para wherefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Consequently, both the 'writ petitions are accepted and respondents are directed to award petitioners the benefits under Circular No.AD.17/Reg.22(iii)82 dated 7-2-1982 and Circular No. PD 51/Reg.22(iii)92 dated 20-8-1992."

7. It is to be noted, the appellants' claim is entitlement of gift valuing Rs.66,000 and souvenir in the shape of silver medal after retirement under the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme vide Circular No.9 dated 23rd October,

997. Relevant portion therefrom is reproduced herein below:-- ".... Under the Scheme, the staff and officers will be entitled to the retirement benefits, available under the existing rules and regulations. In addition to normal retirement benefits, the State Bank will provide the following financial and benefit package under the golden Handshake Scheme to all employees:-- (a) "

8. We inquired from the learned counsel for the appellant to substantiate as to why the respondent shall not be entitled for the above benefit, he could not answer satisfactorily except urging that the retirement under Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme was the special retirement therefore, he would not be entitled for the normal retirement. In view of the language implied in the relevant para of the Golden Handshake Scheme we have no option except to interpret the same in the manner that he would be entitled for the benefits whatever are written therein and under the circumstances the High Court has rightly granted relief to the respondent. Thus no interference is called for. Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./C-10/SC Appeals dismissed.