' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned notification, dated 7-3-2006 issued by the Financial Department, two shortfall advance increments due to the petitioners on account of acquiring higher educational qualification have been withdrawn and payments thereof that have already been made to the petitioners have been directed to be deducted from the petitioners' salaries. The impugned letter was issued on the basis of recommendations made by the learned Provincial Ombudsman in December, 2005 in proceedings to which the petitioners were not parties and therefore, they were never heard. Being apprehensive of the financial loss likely to be caused by the impugned deductions, the petitioners have approached this Court to challenge the impugned order. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that under the applicable law and rules, petitioners have a good case on the merits and the impugned order is invalid both with respect to recovery of past payments to the petitioners and the denial of entitlement to future payments thereof.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shahid Masood Nadeem v. Deputy C.A.A.F., Lahore Cantt. And 3 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1262 and Government of Sindh v. Abdul Sattar Sheikh and others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 589 to submit that the irregular payment made by a competent authority for the services performed by an employee of the Government cannot be deducted from his subsequent salaries under the principle of locus poenitentiae.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General has informed that before considering the foregoing principle enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court, it may be noted in the present case that the grievance raised by the petitioners has never been represented before the concerned respondent authorities. The statement is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He assures that insofar as the impugned letter, dated 7-3-2006 issued by the Financial Department is alleged to have violated any legal rights of the petitioners, the same may be disputed by the petitioners before respondent No.1 or a competent Finance Department authority designated by him who shall grant the petitioners a careful hearing in the matter and decide their objections to the impugned action strictly in accordance with law. Faced with such assurance, the learned counsel for the petitioners have expressed their willingness to approach the respondent No.1 in terms laid out by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
4. In view of the foregoing position, the petitioners are directed to file their representations before respondent No.1 who shall hear the petitioners and decide their objections strictly in accordance with law within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. Until such time as a decision is made by the respondent No.1 in deference to the rule laid down in the aforenoted precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court, no deduction from current salaries of the petitioners shall be made to recover past payments of the disputed shortfall advance increments. Likewise until the recording of a decision by respondent No.1 no future payment of the shortfall advance increment shall be made to the petitioners. Disposed of accordingly.