1. ' QAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).--- The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 9 of Northern Areas Court of Appeals, Establishment Order, 1999 against the judgment and order, dated 16-4-2003 passed by the learned Chief Court Northern Areas Gilgit.
2. Whereby the appellants were directed not to withdraw the special allowance which the respondents are receiving, vide PTV directive dated 26-6-1993 effective from 29-9-1992.
3. ' The learned counsel for the appellants hectically addressed that the respondents are already drawing booster allowance at the rate of 30% basic pay scale and Rs,800 per month as winter allowance, in the circumstances they are not entitled for the special allowances, secondly he pressed that in the light of unreported judgment by the High Court in C.P. No,103 of 1994 (Sanaullah Khan v. Balochistan and others). The respondents under section 12(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance are liable to pay income-tax on the salary since it is being drawn from the Government exchequer.
4. ' Last but not the least the appellants were condemned unheard and they were not provided an opportunity of hearing by the chief Court. So the judgment is hit by Order XX, rule 4 read with Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. And that it is also a non-speaking judgment in nutshell the points raised not properly attended, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
5. ' We have given anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the relevant record carefully.
6. ' So far the question of allowance is concerned the respondents are getting booster allowance which is a technical and skilled allowance. Engineers, Doctors and Judicial Officers are also getting special technical allowance. It is an incentive for specific purpose for specified duties so the same cannot be termed as hard areas allowance. Similarly Rs,800 per month as winter allowance also relates to areas, where winter season is quite cold and chilly besides where normal life becomes quite hard, whereas special allowance is an attraction and incentive to the employees who are serving at backward hard areas. As far a letter Finance Division vide No,Fin-Division U.O. No,2(2)R- 13/86, Dy. No,39-R-9/2002 dated 1-1-2002 is concerned which is reproduced below:-- Quote ' Grant of Special Area Compensatory Allowance to the Federal Government Employees posted in unattractive area of Balochistan.
7. ' Reference Ministry of Information and Media Development U.O.No,F-(8)/2000(TC), dated 30-8- 2001 on the above subject.
8. ' Since the employees of PTV are already getting booster allowance/hard area allowance as such it would not be appropriate to concur the proposal of grant of special area allowance i,e, two similar allowance all the same time. Besides in the new pay scale all such allowances has been abolished.
9. ' No doubt the above letter speaks that the employees of PTV who are already getting booster allowance are not entitled for grant of special areas allowance. But to our view, it is misconceived interpretation on the part of Finance Division the said booster allowance is a technical and skilled allowance for qualified persons in special technical field and it cannot be defined as hard area allowance. The learned counsel failed to produce any authority, concerning Northern Areas had a different set up different geographical environments and spectrum. If at all the Finance Division was mindful of withdrawing the special allowance from the PTV employees serving in the Northern Areas, there would have been explicit and direct circular to this effect.
10. ' Coming next to the income-tax the judgment referred indicting no jurisdiction of High Court, is neither direct nor applicable in the matter. It relates to. PATA and FATA Areas thus, has no bearing in the case in hand, even otherwise it is about Government employees drawing pay and salary from the Government exchequer. The PTV Department is a Corporation, his employees are Corporation servants, who in no stretch of imagination can be termed stricto senso as Government Servants.
11. The Corporation is an autonomous corporate body. It has its own Management and sources of income and that PTV is not getting any grant from the Government exchequer, it is itself a financially sound organization and fetching quite handsome income, likewise PTCL etc. ' The learned counsel also hotly argued that under section 2-A of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, like Government servants PTV employees can also move Service Tribunal under the said provision, the contention has no legs. The facility of Service Tribunal for redressal and remedy does not mean that employees, of corporation, autonomous bodies controlled by Government are Government servants, it is just for the purpose of service matters. The Government servants are governed under Government Servants, Efficiency and Discipline Rules and Civil Servants Act, 1973 whereas employees of PTV have their own rules, and service structure. In this situation of the matter there is no bar to move the Chief Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction as the matter relates to interpretation of different kind of allowances payable to the employees Northern Areas. Even otherwise the Court is of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of on available record/documents placed by the parties and there is no need of evidence. The Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction entertains such petitions despite appropriate forum exist and remedy is available to avoid time consuming lengthy process and to save precious time of the parties and heavy expenses of the parties.
12. ' The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine, no order as to cost, file be consigned to record.