' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---This judgment shall dispose of 11 Writ Petitions bearing Nos .3771/04, 3769/04, 3770/04, 3772/04, 3773/04, 3774/04, 3569/04, 3927/04, 3928/04, 3929/04 and 3930/04.
2. Facts in all the writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed in various jobs with the National Bank of Pakistan. Even after serving for quite a number of years, their services were terminated on the ground that they had been employed on temporary basis. The petitioners filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal and vide judgment, dated 31-3-2001, the appeals were accepted by the learned Tribunal. The petitioners were ordered to be reinstated, however, back- benefits from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement were not allowed. Against this judgment, the Bank filed C.P. No,1836-L/2001 before the Hon'ble apex Court. Aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Tribunal regarding the denial of back-benefits, the petitioners also moved the Hon'ble apex Court through C.P. No,1905-L/2001. The Hon'ble apex Court vide judgment dated 25-10-2001 dismissed the petition of respondent's Bank and allowed the same of petitioners, thus entitling them to receive full back-benefits from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The respondent-Bank filed review petition (C.R.P. No,3-L/2002) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the same was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the Bank on 30-10- 2003 and the following order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan: "It is stated by Mr. Qamar-uz-Zaman, learned ASC, who appeared on behalf of the National Bank of Pakistan, that under instructions of his client, he would not press the captioned petitions because under the new policy the employees including the respondents have been reinstated in service.
Dismissed as not pressed."
2-A. Mr. Abdul Majeed Malik, Advocate, appearing in Writ Petitions Nos.3769/04, 3773/04, 3927/04, 3928/04, 3929/04 and 3930/04, submits that after the reinstatement, the petitioners' represented before the National Bank of Pakistan in which all the back-benefits including the allowances, such as House Building Loan, Computer Advance, Finance Allowance, promotion was demanded as some of the petitioners had become entitled to the promotion during this period and accordingly fixation of salary was also requested. This representation was pending with them till today. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents should decide the representations which are pending before them in light of the Bank Policy applicable to them. Learned counsel has highlighted the discriminatory policy of the Bank and has submitted that all these benefits have been allowed to the employees working at Lahore but the same have not been extended to the employees working at Multan. Relying on Fazal Elahi v. P.T.C.L. (2004 PLC (C.S.) 655), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court has the jurisdiction to get the orders of the Federal Service Tribunal implemented. While elaborating, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that mere filing of review petition does not automatically stay the authorities from implementing the orders of the Federal Service Tribunal. Also relied on Chairman/Managing Director, PIA and pother v. Nisar Ahmad Bhutto 2005 SCMR 57 and submitted that the Hon'ble apex Court had held that the concerned authority is duty bound to implement the order of Federal Service Tribunal when no stay order has been granted by the Hon'ble apex Court. While concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were entitled to the back-benefits and other allowances permissible to them under the Bank Rules and prayed for the same.
3. Mian Arshad Lauf, Advocate, appearing in Writ Petitions Nos.3770, 3771,3772, 3774 and 3569 of 2004 has submitted that as per circular of National Bank of Pakistan bearing No,59/02, dated 25-9- 2002 (annexure "F") in which the benefits, which the petitioners are claiming, have been mentioned.
Further contended that his clients also moved representations before the authority demanding the back-benefits in accordance with the said circular. Haji Muhammad Ibrahim v. D.C. Mandi Bahauddin 2002 MLD 1533 is relied upon. Further submits that this petition is maintainable as he is not praying for any reinstatement and wants only his legal rights in accordance with law. Relies on Ghulam Sarwar v. Habib Ban Ltd. (2001 PLC (C.S.) 198). Learned counsel also concluded his arguments by submitting that the petitioners are entitled to the back-benefits according to the Bank Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, while opposing the petitions, submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable. Learned counsel while relying on A. Ghani Sayeed v. National Bank of Pakistan (1983 PLC (C.S.) 41) submits that the petitioners have alternate remedy to approach the Federal Service Tribunal to seek their grievances regarding the back-benefits. However, the petitioners were paid the arrears but as some extra amount had been paid earlier, therefore, this amount was withdrawn. It is also contended that the money matter is involved and calculation regarding back-benefits cannot be done in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that in money matters, High Court does not interfere and the petitioners can directly approach the Federal Service Tribunal. Further submits that the promotion is not the right of employee and the Bank shall consider the case of the petitioners at the time of promotion of the same category. Further submits that the petitioners of Writ Petition No,3930/2004 and Writ Petition No,3927/2004 have already filed their petitions before the Service Tribunal for the same benefits.
This fact has been mentioned in para No,6 of Writ Petitions Nos.3927/2004 and 3930/2004. They have no right to claim the benefits which they are seeking, and prayed for the dismissal of the 11 writ petitions.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. This is the second round of litigation between the parties. At the conclusion of the first round, the result was that the petitioners were reinstated by the respondent-Bank and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed back benefits to the petitioners from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
7. This round of litigation revolves around the back benefits of the petitioners that were allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The back-benefits being claimed by them includes the allowances, House Building Loan, Computer Advance, Finance Allowance, Promotion and increase in salary on account of promotion. The respondent-Bank has taken the stand that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits that they are claiming to, as already arrears have been paid to them, but since at some early stage, extra amount had been paid to them, due to some bona fide error, therefore, that amount was withdrawn.According to the Bank, the claims of the petitioners are highly exaggerated. Accordingly, there is a factual controversy amongst the parties regarding the claims and also to the extent of claim, which would require to be examined by checking of A the benefits due to them and calculating the amount of each petitioner that the respondent-Bank would ultimately be found liable to pay. This entire exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It would require evidence to be recorded. No calculations have been given by the petitioners regarding the amount due to them. In this regard S.M. Ismail Naqvi and 238 others v.
Federation of Pakistan (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1135) is referred to.
8. In Act LXX of 1973, section 2-A vide Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997, has been added as:-- "2A. Service under certain corporations, etc., to be service of Pakistan.---Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of this Act."
9. Similarly, section 4 of Act LXX of 1973 has been amended and in section 4(1) the word 'final' has been omitted. According to which all employees of the Bank can approach the Federal Service Tribunal. Resultantly, the present petitioners should have approached the learned Federal Service Tribunal in order to redress their grievances. Writ petitions, therefore, are not maintainable.
Respectfully Sh. Rashid Ahmed v. United Bank Ltd. And others (1988 SCMR 926) is relied upon, two of the writ petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.3927 and 3930 of 2004 have already filed appeals before the Service Tribunal against the same grievance. The remaining petitioners should have also availed that remedy. Accordingly, all these writ petitions being not maintainable in lieu of bar as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Before parting with this judgment, it has been brought to my knowledge that the petitioners have filed their representations before the respondent-Bank, which are pending before them since long. If so, they are directed to decide and dispose of all these representations within 30 days, from the receipt of this judgment, strictly according to the Bank policy without any discrimination.