' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J --- This judgment will dispose of Crl. Original petitions Nos. 32, 33, 34 of 2003 and 2 of 2004, in which common questions of fact and law are involved.
2. These matters have chequered history. The petitioners were the employees of the respondents, State Bank of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as "the Bank". The Bank floated a Scheme known .As "Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme" hereinafter called as "VGHSS", vide Circular No,9 of 1997, which reads as under:-- "State Bank of Pakistan General Directorate Post Box No,4456, Karachi ' Personnel Department Circular No,9 23rd October, 1997.
' Dear employees, ' Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme.
' As you are aware, major amendments in the legal framework have been effected in the recent past, which have significantly enhanced and changed the work requirements of the State Bank. To fulfil these responsibilities effectively, it has become necessary to restructure the organization, reorient functions and moderanise procedures. It would involve measures to improve the skill levels introduce technology, reduce administrative costs, review the existing pay structure, and incentives system and streamline the recruitment and separation policies. The restricting process is likely to result in redundancies and the need of creating a "Surplus Pool" of staff and officers at all levels.
Such staff and officers would be entitled to a reduced compensation as compared with their present emoluments. They however, would be provided an opportunity to acquire new skills and training at the State Bank expenses for possible new job assignment. In case, they fail to acquire the necessary skills to fit in a new structure, a compulsory retirement scheme could be introduced for them. However, before a need of a "Surplus Pool" is established, it has been decided to offer an attractive Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme to all employees that is totally voluntary. 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 benefits package under the Golden Handshake Scheme to all employees:--
(a) Three (3) months' basic pay for each completed year of service, or ' One and a half months' basic pay for each remaining month of service, whichever is less, however, subject to a maximum of 90 months basic pay. Plus
(b) Benevolent Fund Grant equivalent to 10 years to be paid in lump sum in advance at the time of settlement of dues as a final payment as per entitlement.
(2) The following normal retirement benefits will be available to the employees:--
(a) Employees who have completed 25 years of service or more.
(i) Under Old Retirement Benefits. Provident Fund own and Bank's contribution and gratuity @ one months' basic pay for each completed year of service.
(ii) Under New Retirement Benefits. General Provident Fund contribution and 50% commutation of gross pension and payment of pension on monthly basis.
(b) Employees whose services are less than 25 years.
(i) Under Old Retirement Benefits. Provident Fund own and Bank's contribution and Gratuity one month's basic pay for each completed year of service.
(ii) Under New Retirement Benefits. General Provident Fund contribution. Although, such employees are not entitled to pensionary benefits, it has been decided, as a special case and without creating any precedent to allow them compensation towards pensionary benefits equivalent to 50% commutation of gross pension as a full and final settlement.
(c) Leave encashment subject to a maximum of 180 days.
(d) Post retirement, medical facilities as admissible under the Bank's rules, or an amount equivalent to two months' pay for every year for a total period of 10 years, at the option of the employee.
(e) Post retirement benefit (other than medical facilities) as admissible under the rules.
3. Every employee who is in the employment of the Bank as on 23rd October, 1997 may opt for the Scheme. The scheme will be open for option upto 22nd November, 1997. No option will be entertained after expiry of the prescribed date of option and an option once exercised will be irrevocable. It will be at the absolute discretion of the employee to exercise his/her option for Golden Handshake Scheme. Also, it will be at the discretion of the Management to accept or refuse to accept the option exercised by an employee in favor of Golden Handshake Scheme or it may defer the acceptance of the option, or may accept the option with such modifications as it deem appropriate keeping in view the interest of the Bank.
4. Other terms and conditions
(a) The Scheme will be applicable to all employees, whether on leave or in service.
(b) The above Scheme will not be applicable to persons engaged on contract/temporary basis.
(c) While computing the length of service, the period exceeding six months will be treated as full year.
(d) The period of extraordinary leave without pay will not be counted for purpose of calculation of any benefit of voluntary retirement.
(e) All amounts outstanding against and due from the employees, who opt in favor of the Scheme, will be liable to be adjusted against final settlement dues.
' Within about a week each employee will be sent a print out showing his/her approximate benefits if he/she was to avail of the package. He/she will have to give his/her consent in writing to Chief Manager/Head of Department on a prescribed form attached herewith by 22nd November, 1997. If for any reasons, an employee does not receive the said print out by 30th October, 1997, then he/she may contact the Regulation Division, Personnel Department, Karachi.
' Please acknowledge receipt.
' Yours securely, ' (5d.) Shah Abdul Hassan) Director"
3. Above Scheme and revised salary package, both were approved by Central Board of Directors of the Bank on 22-10-1997 in a meeting held at Lahore and was accordingly notified through a circular. The last date of exercise of option was fixed 22-11-1997. The Revised Salary Package dated 29-11-1997 was enforced w,e,f, 1-12-1997 and the revised pay of petitioners was fixed in new salary package vide Pay Fixation Sheet dated 8-12-1997.
4. The Bank accepted the option of petitioners/employees for VGHSS on 3-12-1997 and by virtue of it, they were relieved from their services on 15-12-1997. Under the Scheme, the Bank promised to provide additional benefits to the employees as an incentive as is evident from the scheme itself.
The employees were also entitled to normal retirement benefits as indicated in the Scheme. The Bank calculated all the financial benefits (Pension/Commutation), leave encashment (maximum 180 days), medical encashment @ 2 months pay for every year for a total period of 10 years, post retirement benefits and Financial Package under VGHSS on the basis of pay as on 22-11-1997, which according to the petitioners, was illegal and the same should have been calculated as on 15-12- 1997, when the employees were relieved.
5. Being dissatisfied with the action of the Bank for not taking the period of service from 23-11-1997 to 15-12-1997 as regular service and ignoring the last pay scale during the period from 1-12-1997 to 15-12-1997 for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits, the petitioners approached the Federal Service Tribunal to redress their grievances, but learned Tribunal dismissed the appeals vide judgment dated 19-10-2000. The petitioners still being dissatisfied, approached this Court through various civil petitions, wherein a Full Bench of this Court, comprising the then Chief Justice and two others, held as follows:- "It is also common ground between the parties that the Bank, vide its Personnel Department Circular No,12, dated 29-11-1997, informed all its employees that the Central Board in its meeting held on 22-10-1997, approved a revised Salary Package for its employees effective from 1-12-1997 in respect of scales, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; Scales I, II, III and IV; Ogs III, II and I Sr. Grs.III, II and I and Exec. Gr.
Accordingly, the above revised salary of each employee was fixed in the new scales on the basis of his/her respective position in the present scale in accordance with the approved formula. It is also an admitted fact that all the petitioners herein were in the employment of the Bank on 1-12-1997, when the revised salary structure became effective notwithstanding the fact that they had earlier opted for the VGHSS and the same was accepted by the Bank on 3-12-1997. Parties are also one on the point that all the petitioners/employees were paid the revised salary in accordance with Personnel Department Circular No,12, dated 29-11-1997 for the period from 1-12-1997 to 15-12-1997 i,e, up to the date when they were relieved from service under the VGHSS. The question, therefore, arises whether while calculating the pension available to the petitioners the revised salary paid to them for the period between 1-12-1997 to 15-12-1997 could be denied. The learned counsel for the Bank have not been able to satisfy the Court as to on what principle of law such treatment can be meted out to petitioners/employees. When faced with this Messrs M. Bilal and K.M.A. Samdani vehemently argued that these cases do not involve any substantial question of law of public importance, therefore, notwithstanding their individual grievances, the relief sought for cannot be allowed them in these proceedings.
' Finally, it was concluded in aforesaid judgment that all Pensionary benefits shall be calculated by taking into account the period between 1-12-1997 to 15-12-1997.
6. The record reveals that in response to above judgment, the Bank calculated only pension and commutation on the basis of average pay drawn by the employees during the last 12 months (i,e, from 16-12-1996 to 15-12-1997) instead of calculating all Pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn on 15-12-1997. According to the petitioners, the Bank violated not only its own rules and regulations but also the findings recorded by this Court.
7. The employees then filed Contempt of Court Petitions through Criminal Original Petitions Nos.46, 47, 48 of 2001 and 21 of 2002 before this Court to direct the Bank to calculate all retirement/financial benefits of the petitioners on the basis of last pay drawn after treating the date of retirement as 15- 12-1997 and also given them all those post retirement benefits, which were not given to them.
8. These criminal original petitions were heard by a Full Bench of this Court comprising three learned Judges and were disposed of vide judgment, dated 19-11-2002 in terms of its paras. Nos.3 and 4, which read as under:--- "3. The petitioners were not given Pensionary benefits on the basis of last drawn pay on 15-12-1997 as the case of the respondents was that for the purpose of said benefit, they were to be treated differently i,e,, the date on which they had opted for voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme shall be deemed to be the last date of their regular service for the purpose of Pensionary benefits and from 1-12-1997 to 15-12-1997, they would get the enhanced pay and pension for the said period on the basis of the said enhanced salary structure. In view of this, the interpretation and understanding of the respondents' Bank about the judgment of this Court is not correct. It has been held in the judgment that the petitioners and all other employees who had opted for voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme shall be deemed to continue in service till 15-12-1997, therefore, in our view, for the purposes of Pensionary benefits, they shall be deemed to have retired on 15-12-1997, therefore, their pension was to be calculated according to the structure of pension scheme dated 9-5-2000, which was made effective on 1-12-1997.
4 All the functionaries of the respondents are hereby directed to calculate the Pensionary benefits of the petitioners and other employees of the State Bank, who had opted for voluntary C Golden Handshake Scheme and the pay ments already made shall be adjusted against the amounts found due. The needful shall be done within three months positively and compliance reported to the Registrar of this Court. The above petitions stand disposed of accordingly."
9. The Bench concluded that the act of the respondents was "not tainted with mala fide and that the Bank acted under bona fide impression as such the notices issued to the concerned employees of the Bank were discharged".
10. In the New Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 9, 15th Edition at p.266 the following is laid down for the term "Pension":-- "Pension. Series of periodic money payments to a person who retires from employment because of age, disability, or the completion of an agreed span of service. The payments usually continue for the rest of the natural life of the recipient, and sometimes to a widow or other survivor. Military pensions have existed for many centuries; private pension plans originated in Europe during the 19th Century.
' Eligibility for and amounts of benefits are based on a variety of factors, including length based on a variety of factors, including length of employment, age, earnings, and in some cases, past contributions."
' In Law Laxican defined "pension" as follows:-- ' Pension defined, Act 21, 1886, S.2 241C 803 a periodical payment made by a Government, company or any employer or labour in consideration of past services or the relinquishment of rights, claims or emoluments; regular payments to persons in order that they may maintain themselves.
Art.112(3)(d)(i) Const.
' Article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan defines the "pension" as follows:--- "Pension" means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to, or in respect of, any person and ' includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable, and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any addition thereto, of subscriptions to a provident fund. (underlining is for emphasis).
11. It appears that after above decision of this Court, the Bank vide its Circular No,AD(Hr.3- 79)/6714/2002 dated 23-11-2002 directed all its Chief Managers to calculate all the benefits under the VGHSS on E the basis of salary drawn by the employees on 15-12-1997 instead of 22-11-1997 but at the time of its implementation the Bank limited it to pension only and not to other retirement/pensionary benefits.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that calculation should have been for all retirement benefits. According to them, Pensionary benefits mean and include all retirement benefits. It is further urged that one cannot apply one date for calculating Pensionary benefits, while another date for calculating other retirement benefits. Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim Senior Advocate. Supreme Court contends that the employees were entitled to "retirement benefits", which included pension and all other Pensionary benefits. According to him, this fact is admitted by the Bank in one of its letters, which reads as follows:-- "With reference to para. 2 of the Personal Department Circular No,15, dated 1st December, 1997, it is further clarified that for the purpose of calculating the Pensionary benefits of an employee/officer whose option for Golden Handshake Scheme has been accepted, the factor of his/her age and length of service will be determined as on 22nd November, 1997 (A.N.) the date which has been fixed for determination of service under the Golden Handshake Scheme or the date on which the ceases to be an employee of the Bank whichever occurs first. Other instructions remain unchanged."
' Elaborating it, he states that the bank has conceded that so far as the pension is concerned, the relevant date for calculation is last pay drawn on 15-12-1997 but at the same time pleads that this date will not be extended to other retirement benefits. He also argued that the judgment dated 19- 11-2002 expressly mentioned "all Pensionary benefits".
13. As against above, Mr. Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Bank argued that the petitioners in their contempt applications in the prayer clause did not even use the words "Pensionary benefits". He submitted that the petitioners only prayed for retirement benefits.
According to him, the term "Retirement benefits" is wider than "Pensionary benefits". He argued that in the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh, he did not even use words "financial benefits" or "retirement benefits" and has confined only to the relief i,e, Pensionary benefits and Pensionary benefits alone. He contends that it is settled principle of law that if a prayer is made in wider terms, but only part of relief is given then the person concerned is not entitled to make an additional claim. In support of this contention, he relied upon Order 2, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. He adds that in such circumstances, additional relief could not be granted, which was not explicity given. In support of above, he relied upon (1) Rafhan Maize Products Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax PLD 1988 SC 398 relevant page 406 (2) Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance 1992 PTD 576 relevant page 587 (3) Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. And others v. Federation of Pakistan through M/O Finance and 6 others PLD 1997 SC-582 relevant page 622. In the last, he submitted that phrase "Pensionary benefits" is not used as synonymous to the much wider concept of "all retirement benefits". According to him, both phrases i,e, "Pensionary benefits" and "retirement benefits" are used in the scheme and carry different meanings. He emphasized that phrase "Pensionary benefits" is limited and is not equivalent to `retirement benefits". According to him, wider definition of them "pension" contained in Article 260 of the Constitution is inapplicable in these matters.
Finally, he concluded that the claim of petitioners involved an additional expenditure of Rs,85 crores, besides their further such claims are in the pipeline.
14. According to Webster New International Dictionary (Second Edition) at page 2560, the word "Synonymous" means "(1) Having the character of a synonym; alike or nearly alike in meaning; equivalent or nearly so in significance; as, synonymous words; "glad" is synonymous with "joyful".
(2) Having the same connotations, implications, or reference; suggesting the same thing; as, to the colonists, Indian was synonymous with marauder; in the .Minds of some readers, socialism in synonymous with Bolshevism". In World Book Dictionary Vol. II at page 2129, above word has been defined as "having the same or nearly the same meaning". In Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1300, above term means "expressing the same or nearly the same idea". In words and Phrases permanent Edition Vol.40A at page 634, it is explained that "Synonymous words are words expressing the same thing, conveying the same or approximately the same idea". Likewise, in Legal and Thesaurus Regular Edition, by William C. Burton at page 991, above word has been defined to mean. "coequal, coextensive, cognate, congruous, equivalent, G identical, similar, tantamount".
15. In the light of above dictionary meanings, this is to be decided whether "Pensionary benefits" and "retirement benefits" are synonymous or carry different meanings. The plea that term "Pensionary benefits" does not include "retirement benefits" as the latter is wider in its scope than the former is erroneous. In the Scheme itself, both phrases viz. "Pensionary benefits" and "retirement benefits" have been used as "synonymous". One does not get pension while he is still in service.
Likewise, retirement benefits are only available after one actually retires. In other words in both the circumstances the right to pension and other retirement benefits accrue after one ceases to be an employee. It can be explained a way that the term pension is a collective name of all the benefits an employee gets under various heads. All are generally known as pensionary benefits or retirement benefits. They are the same. In general sense, the term "pension" denotes to a grant after release from service.
16. It is specifically mentioned in the Scheme that staff and officers will be entitled to retirement benefits available under the existing rules and regulations and that in addition to normal retirement benefits, additional benefits were also offered to them as specifically stated in the scheme. Line of distinction, as drawn by the learned counsel for the Bank, is artificial, imaginary and vague: In the Scheme itself both the phrases have been used conveying the same or approximately the same meaning. Two different dates cannot be applied one for calculating "Pensionary benefits" and the other for "retirement benefits". These reliefs emanate from pay and it has been specifically held by this Court that for this purpose the relevant date is 15-12-1997 and not 23-11-1997. Revised Salary Structure of the Bank became effective from 1-12-1997 and the petitioners were entitled for it as they continued to serve up to 15-12-1997. By resorting to illogical interpretation, the petitioners could not be deprived of their legitimate right on the plea that an additional expenditure of about Rs,85 crore would be incurred. To avoid said expenditure. The Bank had two options. Either it should have relieved the petitioners, on or before 30-11-1997 or the revised salary package should have been enforced from 16-12-1997. So was not done. Expenditure of any amount now by itself is not a valid ground to undo the legal rights, I which the Bank itself created.
17. As per definition of term "pension" in the Constitution, it includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable, and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any addition thereto of subscriptions to a provident fund. It is apparent from this definition that term pension is not confined to series of periodic money payments to a person after retirement, but it also includes gratuity or some other sum, as defined in term pension appearing in the Constitution.
18. In view of above, "Pensionary benefits/retirement benefits" shall be paid to the petitioners by calculating all the retirement/financial benefits on the basis of last pay drawn after treating the date of retirement as 15-12-1997. This exercise be completed expeditiously and the benefits so calculated be paid to them within two months from now and compliance be reported to the Registrar of this Court.
19. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for initiating Contempt Proceedings against the concerned employees of the bank as they acted under the bona fide impression that the petitioners were not entitled to said amount. In above terms, the titled petitions are allowed.