' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER)---With this judgment we shall dispose of the above titled appeals as their facts are identical. All the appellants were in the service of National Press Trust. The present appeals were filed by them for the grant of their lawful dues. On 15-8-2001 an order was passed by this Tribunal, comprising Mr. Imtiaz Ali Khan and Mr. Nabi Bakhsh Bhatti, Members, transferring all the appeals to the High Court in view of section 31 of Ordinance LII of 2000. This order was passed since the organization in which the appellants were employed had been privatized. The Privatization Commission was also impleaded as a respondent. The Judgment order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellants by filing writ petitions in the Lahore High Court. Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Judge of the Lahore High Court decided the writ petitions on 17-4-2002. The concluding para of the judgment delivered by the Honourable Lahore High Court is reproduced as under:- "It is thus clear that the subordinate legislation cannot over rule the legislation provisions and cannot confer any jurisdiction on the High Court in the presence of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hence these petitions are not maintainable in the High Court and are disposed of with the direction to send back these cases to the Federal Service Tribunal for the decision on merits."
2. In view of the direction issued by the High Court the present files were registered again and notices were issued to the respective parties. Today objections have been filed by the respondents.
3. The appellants have prayed that the benefit of the judgment dated 4-10-2003 passed by this Tribunal in Appeals Nos.1339 to 1367 (L)/1999 titled Chief Executive, Progressive Paper Limited v.
Muhammad Younus etc be extended to them.
4. The appeals are resisted by the respondents on the ground of limitation. It is also stated that the appellant have already received their lawful dues and now they have no cause of action to file the present appeals.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the appellants present in person. The record has also been perused by us.
6. The only grievance made by the appellants is that their lawful dues were not correctly calculated. They have prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents for re-calculating their dues not their presence. The request made by the appellants is harmless, if allowed it would not cause any loss to the respondents in any manner. In Appeals Nos.1339 to 1367(L)/1999 and also in Appeals Nos.983, 1460 to 1464, 1521: 1711, 2067 to 2070(L)/1998 decided on 4-10-2003 and 26-7-2003 we had issued a similar direction that calculation of dues be made afresh in the presence of the appellants. In the light of our aforementioned judgments we accept the present appeals also and direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the respective appellant. The relevant record shall be produced by the appellants before the General Manager of the erstwhile National Press Trust. The General Manager shall make re- calculations of the dues in the presence of the appellants.
' For that he shall issue notices to all the appellants fixing time, date and place for resolving the controversy.
7. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to limitation is not sustained. The appellants have made claims for their pensionary benefits etc. Their right to get whatever is due to them on account of their pensionary benefits cannot be sacrificed at the altar of limitation. For such-like dues an aggrieved civil servant has a continuing cause of action and the established law is that for a continuing cause of action there is no fixed period of limitation.
9. For the above reasons the appeals are allowed to this extent that all the cases are remanded to the General Manager of the National Press Trust for fresh decision, after making calculations in the presence of the appellants.
10. No orders as to costs. Parties be informed.