' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- The Federal Bank for Cooperatives, petitioner herein, has filed these two connected petitions (C.P. No,2444 of 2003 and C.P. No,1537 of 2004) under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the judgments dated 5-8-2003 and 14-4- 2004 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in the service appeals filed by Muhammad Ali Phulpoto and Mumtaz Ahmed Khan, respectively, respondents herein. These petitions involving common questions of law and facts are proposed to be disposed of together through this single judgment.
' Muhammad Ali Phulpoto, respondent in C.P. No,2444 of 2003, was employed in the UBL and in pursuance of his selection as Deputy Director in the Federal Bank for Cooperatives, he was required to join the new assignment in the Federal Bank by or before 1-6-1979 but he submitted the joining report with a gap of about 25 days. The respondent applied for counting of his previous service in the UBL for the purpose of pension and other benefits and as per decision of the Board of Directors, he was directed vide letter dated 25-2-1998 for contribution of an amount of Rs,4,76,520 at the rate of Rs,33.50% of the existing pay in the Federal. Bank within one month in terms of clause (c) of regulation 9(1) of FBC Employees Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1989. The respondent, however, insisted for deposit of amount at the rate of 18.50% of the existing pay in terms of clause (h) of the above regulations. The Board of Directors of the Bank initially rejected his request but latter, in its meeting held on 20-7-2000 principally agreed for counting of his previous recognized service for the purpose of terminal benefits subject to the deduction of contribution at the rate of 18.5% of the existing pay. However, the Board subsequently, vide resolution dated 26-3-2001 decided not to count the previous service of the respondent for pensionary benefits for the reason firstly, that he had already received the benefit of contribution of provident fund and the gratuity of his previous service from his employer and secondly he joined the Bank with a break of about 25 days therefore, there being no continuity in his service, he was not entitled to avail the benefit of his previous service.
' The respondent in C.P. No,1537 of 2004 was aggrieved of the exclusion of his 13 years previous service rendered by him in State Bank of Pakistan before joining the Federal Bank for Cooperative for the purpose of calculation of his formal benefits under Golden Handshake Scheme of petitioner-Bank on he had already received full benefit from his previous employer and was not entitled to the pensionary benefits under Service Regulations of Federal Bank for Cooperatives.
' The respondents in these petitions being aggrieved of the above decision of the Board of Directors, having exhausted the departmental remedy filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal and the Tribunal vide impugned judgment, allowed their appeals with direction to the petitioner-Bank to count their previous service for the purpose of pension, subject to deposit of amount by them in terms of clause (h) of Regulation No,9(1) of the Bank Service Regulations and the amount would be deducted from their retiring benefits by condoning the gap if any, in their continuous service under regulation 9(2) of the aforesaid regulation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions in support of these petitions:-- "(a) The respondents having not deposited the amount as per decision of the Board within the specified time, would not be entitled to take its benefit which stood superseded by a subsequent decision under which the respondents, without fulfilling the essential conditions contained in clause
(c) of Regulation 9(1) of the Service Regulations, 1989 of the Bank could not claim the benefit of service rendered by them with their previous employer towards pension in the Federal Bank;
(b) The respondents in both the petitions having already obtained benefits of their previous service from their employers could not claim the benefit of said service again for the purpose of pension in the petitioner's Organization and that their case was distinguishable to that of the precedent cases referred in the judgment of the Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent (in C.P.2444 of 2003) in reply argued that the Board of Directors, recalled its earlier decision by virtue of which the previous service of respondent was allowed to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits on his demand of recalculation of the percentage of the amount to be surrendered and in an arbitrary manner denied his legitimate right to avail the benefits of previous service' under the Bank Service Regulation, 1989. Learned counsel submitted that notwithstanding the payment of dues to the respondent by his previous employer, he had a legitimate right to avail the benefit of his previous service towards the pension in the Federal Bank for Cooperatives subject to deposit of certain percentage of his existing pay.
4. The selection of the respondent in the Federal Bank through proper channel is not deniable and the receipt of gratuity as well as the contributory fund by him from his previous employer and joining of service of the Organization with a gap of 25 days is admitted. The decision of the Board regarding the counting of previous service of the respondent in the UBL, subject to deposit of 18.5% of the existing pay and the grant of benefit of previous service to the employees of ABL towards the pension in the petitioner's Organization is also admitted. The United Bank Limited was a nationalized Bank, therefore, its service was pensionable and the respondent, as per record produced before the Tribunal and also before us, applied for the position of Deputy Director in the petitioner's Organization through proper channel, therefore, his appointment in the Federal Bank would be considered in continuation of his service in UBL. It is also a matter of record that in similar circumstances, the previous service of Khawaja Mustafa, Rana Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Yousaf in ADBP was counted for the purpose of pension in the petitioner's Organization and the case of respondent was not distinguishable to that of the abOve named officials except that there was a break of 25 days in his service. In these circumstances, the pivotal question for determination would be whether the respondent having already obtained the benefit of gratuity and contributory provident fund of the service rendered by him in UBL was not entitled to claim benefit of his previous service in terms of Regulation No,9 of Federal Bank for Cooperatives Employees Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1989. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent would be governed by clause (c) of Regulation 9, which reads as under:-- "9.
(a) .
(b).
(c) actual pensionable service, if any, rendered by him in any autonomous or semi-autonomous body of the Government and such service is continuous: provided that the former organization is prepared to accept the proportionate pensionary liability for the period such employee was in its service; as per decision taken by the Board in its meeting held on 17-4-1995 the following is to be added in section 9(i)(c) under "determination of total qualifying service". Previous service in any organization which was taken into consideration during recruitment' will be included for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Contribution of pension for the above period will be allowed to be deposited by the employees on the basis of last pay drawn.
(d).
(e).
(t) ................ .
(g) ................................................................
(h) .....................................................................................
' Clause (c) above, provides that an employee of the Federal Bank for Cooperatives who has rendered actual pensionable service in any autonomous or semi-autonomous body of the Government and such Organization was prepared to accept the proportionate liability for the period for which such person remained in its employment, the period of his continuous service for determination of total qualifying service, would be counted for the purpose of pension in the petitioner's Organization. It was subsequently, added in this clause that for the purpose of pensionary benefit contribution of pension for the relevant period will be allowed to be deposited by the employees on the basis of last pay drawn wherein in clause (h) of Regulation 9 it is provided as under:-- "(h) the previous continuous service in Banks/Autonomous/Semi-Autonomous bodies of the Government will be included for the purposes of pensionary benefits. Contribution for pension for this period will be allowed to be deposited by the employees at the rate of 18.5% of their present pay. Services of purely private organizations shall not be taken into account for the purpose."
5. The plain reading of the above two sub-clauses of Regulations 9(1) would show that the same are independent to each other and a person fulfilling the requirement of either of these two sub- clauses, would become entitled to the benefit of his previous service. The only distinction is that for the purpose of clause (h) requirement is the continuous service and deposit of 18.5% of the existing pay whereas under clause (c), the actual pensionable service of a person in any autonomous or semi-autonomous body controlled by the Government would be counted towards pension subject to the acceptance of contribution by such body, the proportionate pensionary liability. We having considered the matter in the light of the above sub-clauses of Regulation 9(1) of the Bank Service Regulations, 1989, find that Board was misdirected in coining to the conclusion that respondent having obtained the benefit of contributory provident fund and gratuity from his previous employer was not entitled to the benefit of the service rendered by him in UBL for the purpose of pension in the Organization. The careful examination of sub-clauses would clearly show that the subject to the fulfillment of the conditions contained in any of the above sub-clauses, a person may avail the benefit of his previous recognized service. The case of employees of ADBP and ABL referred in the judgment of Tribunal, who had joined the Organization almost in similar circumstances and were allowed the benefit of previous service was not distinguishable to the respondent; therefore, in the light of principle of equality and equal treatment, the respondent could not be treated differently.
The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in an unreported case" Federal Bank Cooperatives Islamabad v. Ishan Muhammad" C.P.L.A. No,82 of 2003, contended that this Court while setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal, allowed the appeal of the Bank with the observation that the precedent cases referred therein were distinguishable, held that the sub-clause (c) of Regulation 9(1) was not correctly interpreted and applied. We having gone through the judgment in question find that the facts of that case, were entirely different as the employees in the said case, had neither applied through proper channel nor had qualifying service in the Government Department for the purpose of counting the same towards the pensionary benefit in the Organization whereas in the present case, the Tribunal has determined the entitlement of the respondent on the basis of his previous recognized service in the light of service regulation of the same. Be that as it may the Board of Directors the Organization, being conscious of clause (h) of the Regulation 9(1) at the first instance rightly directed the respondents to deposit the certain amount at the rate of 18.5% and subsequent change of decision would have no legal justification. In view of the above, the respondents in both these petitions would stand at par to each other in the matter of their entitlement to get the benefit of their previous continuous service under the Scheme of Service Law of the petitioner-Bank.
6. In the light of above discussion, we hold that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of their previous service for the purpose of pension in the petitioner's Organization, subject to the fulfillment of conditions contained in clause (h) of Regulation No,9(1) of Regulation, 1989. Consequently, we uphold the judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss these petitions. Leave is refused.