MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide W.P. No,14944 of 2002 and W.P. No,20445 of 2002 as common questions are involved.
2. Before we proceed further we may state here that in W.P. No,14944 of 2002 the vires of Rule 5(g)
(iii) of the Punjab Urban Local Councils (Immovable Property Tax) Rules, 1999 were questioned and we had issued a notice to the learned Advocate General, Punjab, who did not turn up. However, as it turned out, the actual case of the petitioners is that even upon the language of the said provision, they are entitled to the exemption in the payment of the said tax. We, therefore, proceed to decide these matters.
3. Muhammad Din petitioner in W.P. No,14944 of 2002 joined the Government service on 10-12-1962 and retired w.e.f, 12-11-2001 vide notification dated 26-10-2001 issued by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. Iftikhar-ud-Din petitioner in W.P. No,20445 of 2002 joined Government service on 12-11-1966 and retired from service on 1-9-1993.
4. Both the said petitioners while in the government service were transferred to the said PTCL upon its establishment. The grievance being made out is that the respondents are not giving the benefit of clause (g)(iii) of Rule 5 of the Punjab Urban Local Councils (Immovable Property Tax) Rules, 1999.
According to this provision', the said Immovable Property Tax shall not be leviable in respect of one residential house owned and occupied for his residence by a Government servant of the Federal Government or a Province.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since both the petitioners were in Government service when they were transferred to the said PTCL, which is . An organization, or a company owned by the Federal Government, the terms and conditions were not to be changed. The precise contention is that notwithstanding the said transfer of service the petitioners shall remain government servants. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of Division Engineer Phones, Phones Division, Sukkur and another v. Muhammad Shahid and others (1999 PLC (C.S.) 1208).
Learned A.A.-G., on the other hand, draws our attention to a further amendment made in the said rules by the Punjab Finance Act, 2000 whereby clause (gg) has been added stating that an employee of an organization or a company owned by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government shall not be deemed to be a Government servant within the meaning of the said provision.
6. We have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel and the learned Law Officer. We find that Iftikhar-ud-Din already had completed 25 years of his service in the year 1991 when he was transferred to the said PTCL. Similarly, Muhammad Din petitioner had put in about 19 years of Government service when he was so transferred to the PTCL. In the said case of the Division Engineer Phones, Phones Division, Sukkur and another, their Lordships recapitulated the entire case-law on the subject while drawing a line between an employee engaged by the said PTCL after its establishment and the one whose services were transferred to the corporation by means of the statutory instrument establishing the same i.e, the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 enacted on 27-11-1991. Their Lordships observed as follows at page 1219 of the said report:-- "In cases of Corporation created by the Government through statutory instruments if existing employees are transferred to the Corporation, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, the transferred employees continue to remain in the service of Corporation on the same terms and conditions under which they were working before their transfer to the Corporation. Therefore, if an employee of the Corporation before his transfer to the Corporation was a civil servant, he continues to be a civil servant. In all other cases, where an employee is appointed in the service of the Corporation after the Corporation is established, his service is governed by the service rules of the Corporation."
' It was further observed at page 1221 of the report that the persons who were already enjoying status of civil servant before creation of PTCL under the said statute and whose services were transferred to the Corporation are civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 i.e, they are in service of Pakistan.
7. To our mind the said dictum of the Honorable Supreme Court fully applies to the case of the present petitioners, particularly when their Lordships have drawn the distinction with reference to the deeming provision made in the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, by virtue of section 2- A, added thereto, in juxtaposition to the status of a person who is a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 itself. We, therefore, do hold that by all means the petitioners, who had been serving in the PTCL after transfer on the same terms and conditions which were applicable to them while they were serving elsewhere in the Government, are government servants and having retired are entitled to the said exemption in the matter of payment of Immovable Property Tax in respect of one house owned and possessed by them. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the levy of the said tax and its recovery from the petitioners in respect of one house each owned and possessed by them respectively is declared to be without lawful authority. We are told that the petitioners have been paying said tax against receipts. The tax recovered shall he refunded to the petitioners by the respondents upon presentation of the said receipts. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.