' IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, J.--- Through this Intra-Court Appeal, under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the appellants have challenged the order, dated 5-6-2006, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed their constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,1622 of 2001).
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant No,1, Muhammad Ashraf Shah is a retired M.D.A. Employee, whereas appellant No,2 Mst. Shamim Akhtar is the widow of Ch. Abdul Khaliq ex- M.D.A. Employee. They are receiving pension regularly on monthly basis from the office of the respondent-M.D.A. The Government of Punjab through Finance Department's Notification No,FD.SR.III.
4.72/00 dated 27-7-1999 granted increase in pension to the civil pensioners of Punjab Government w,e,f, 1-7-1999. The Authority/ M.D.A. Governing body in its 35th meeting, held on 21-2-2000, adopted the said notification and the appellants were granted increase in their pension w,e,f, 1-7-1999.
Subsequently, the Authority/M.D.A. Governing body in its 38th meeting held on 6-8-2001, had withdrawn the benefit of increase in the pension payable to the appellants w,e,f, 1-10-2000. Against the said action of the respondent M.D.A. Governing Body, the appellants filed Writ Petition No,1622 of 2001, which ,was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers, vide his order,' dated 5-6- 2006. Hence this I.C.A.
3. It is contended by' learned counsel for the appellants that the benefit of increase in the pension payable to the appellants after having become effective could not have been withdrawn. In this respect reliance is placed upon Director-General, Ordnance Services, General Headquarters, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Abdul Latif 2003 SCM R 410. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that although the respondent/M.D.A. Through its 35th meeting, held on 21-2-2000, had agreed to adopt the decision of the Government of the Punjab in terms of Punjab Government Notification dated 27-7-1999 w,e,f, 1-7-1999, but later on it transpired that the said decision of the Government of the Punjab had no binding effect on the respondent-Department being statutory body and it was for the respondent-Department to decide whether to increase the pension of its employees or not, keeping in view its financial resources independent of the said notification of the Government of the Punjab and since the financial position of the department was in crises at the relevant time, therefore, increase in the pension was withheld through its subsequent meeting. The learned counsel further submits that however, despite withholding the increase in pension the amount already paid to the appellants was never withdrawn and that such withholding was for a short span of time as through its 42nd meeting, held on 9-8-2003, the respondent-Authority had again decided to adopt the increase in pension w,e,f, 1-7-2003 and since the appellants are getting 15% increased pension.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
5. Admittedly, the appellants were granted increase in their pension w,e,f, 1-7-1999 by the Authority/M.D.A. Governing Body/respondent No,1 in its 35th meeting, held on 21-2-2000, but the said benefit was withdrawn by the authority/M.D.A. Governing Body/respondent No,1 in its 38th meeting held on 6-8-2001. Withdrawal in the increase in pension was for a short span of time as Authority/M.D.A. Governing Body/respondent No,1 again decided to adopt the said notification of the Government of the Punjab for allowing 15% increase w,e,f, 1-7-2003 and the said increase is also applicable to the appellants:The appellants have admittedly again started receiving the pension in accordance with 15% increase in pursuance of 42nd meeting of the Authority. The appellants have been receiving the increased pension w,e,f, 1-7-2003 without any objection and are continuing to receive the same. The appellants by accepting the same have in fact acquiescent to the acts of the respondents and the principle of estoppel would be applicable. The appellants in the circumstances cannot agitate the matter any further.
6. We have examined the impugned order and find that the same does not suffer from any legal error thus, we are inclined to maintain it.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the appeal is devoid of merits. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.