' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---The writ petition filed by the appellant who had retired from service (Blacksmith) from Punjab Road Transport Corporation on 28-9-1996, assailing order dated 19-4- 1999 whereby he was informed that the service rendered by him on daily wage basis did not fall within the purview of qualifying service under the pension rules and his pension was re-calculated, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6-11-2003, which has given rise to this Intra-Court Appeal.
2. The appeal was entertained in view of the assertion of the appellant that persons similarly situated and placed were being given full retirement pensionary benefits whereas the appellant had been denied similar treatment.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
4. The undisputed position is that the appellant had served the Punjab Road Transport Corporation from 28-9-1961 to 27-9-1996 as blacksmith and retired on attaining the age of superannuation. His pension and commutation was calculated and duly sanctioned. It was afterwards that some audit objection was raised that the period of his service rendered as daily wage worker could not be counted for pensionary purposes i,e, with effect from 1961 to 1970 and, accordingly his pension was re-calculated taking into account only the period of his regular service with effect from the year 1970. After the dismissal of his petition an intervening development that has taken place is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan decided number of petitions/appeals i,e, Ikram Ban and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another (2005 SCM R 100), which the learned counsel for the appellant invokes to support his assertion that even the period of service on daily wage basis could be counted and taken into consideration for calculating the pensionary benefits. In the precedent case while issuing direction to the National Bank of Pakistan it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that "previous service rendered by them with the Bank shall be counted towards retirement/pensionary benefits." The employees so arrayed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court included those who were on daily wages. Since there is no statutory prohibition such beneficial interpretation and approach can be extended and applied to the appellant as well particularly when the Corporation itself had while calculating his retirement/pensionary benefits counted his uninterrupted period of daily wage service for the said purpose and only the audit objections latterly raised came into the way of the appellant.
5. It may at this juncture be mentioned that in I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCM R 1041) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said celebrated judgment highlighted the concept of "pension" after considering number of precedents. Encyclopedia, Britannica Corpus Juris Secundum, American Jurisprudence and concluded that:-- "A pension is intended to assist a retired civil servant in providing for his daily wants so long he is alive in consideration of his past services, though recently the above benefit has been extended inter alias in Pakistan to the widows and the dependent children of the deceased civil servants. The raison d'etre for pension seems to be inability to provide for oneself due to old-age. The right and extent to claim pension depends upon the terms of the relevant statute wider which it has been granted . "
' An earlier view taken in The Government of N.-W.F.P. Through the Secretary to the Government of N.-W.F.P. Communications and Works Departments, Peshawar v. Muhammad Said Khan and another (PLD 1973 SC 514) was also referred with approval that:-- "It must now be taken as well-settled that a person who enters Government service has also something to look forward after his retirement, to what are called retirement benefits, grant of pension being the most valuable of such benefits. It is equally well-settled that pension like salary of a civil servant is no longer a bounty but is a right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period. A fortiori, it cannot be reduced or refused arbitrarily except to the extent and in the manner provided in the relevant rules. Conversely full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course unless the service rendered has been duly approved (See Article 470, Civil Service Regulations). It is equally well-settled that if the service had not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension is empowered under the said Article to make such reduction in the amount as it may deem proper. This power is however exercisable only before pension is actually sanctioned." (Underlined for relevant purpose).
' In the instant case as mentioned above the pension had been sanctioned and calculated by the employer i,e, the Punjab Road Transport Corporation by counting the service of the appellant as daily wage employee but reduction thereafter was made unjustifiably on an audit report, which could not be done.
6. In the precedent case of I.A. Sharwani (Supra) Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 also came to be considered before their Lordships. The substance of which is that a pensioner may have a legitimate grievance if he is not treated alike with the other pensioners and the one who is deprived of some benefit, which is being given to the others, it would be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Ialamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The rationale and underlying idea behind which is that all similarly placed and situated should be treated alike/equally.
' The appellant in this case must have seen thinking that while other daily wage employees were being given full pensionary benefits why he has been deprived and being denied the same benefit.
He was justified to raise such grievance before the Court. A list of such employees has also been brought on record by him who were being paid full retirement/pensionary benefits but the appellant was denied though similarly placed. He is thus entitled to the relief prayed for.
' In such view of the matter by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we accept this appeal with no order as to costs.