' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Listed petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 10th December; 2003, therefore, we proposed to dispose them of by means of instant judgment.
2. Petitioners' case precisely stating is that being in the employment/service of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-Corporation'), they availed the benefit of voluntary retirement separation scheme by exercising independently their respective options as a result whereof they severed their connection w,e,f, 5th December, 2000 with the respondent-Corporation on availing the extra benefits permissible under the scheme. It so happened that after their retirement the Corporation restructured the pay scales of its employees in the month of April, 2001, making applicable revised pay structure w,e,f, 1st January, 2000. In view of such change in the pay scales, petitioners agitated their claim for extending benefit of the same to them as well but without any success as ultimately vide impugned judgment Federal Service Tribunal declined to grant them relief.
3. Learned counsel appearing for one of the petitioners (Wali-ur-Rehman) in Civil _Petition No,442- L of 2004, contended that because the petitioners were in service in the year of 2000, therefore, they are also entitled to draw benefits of new pay scales which has been made applicable w,e,f, 1st January, 2000 and the relief has been withheld by the Service Tribunal without any justification. He further pleaded that petitioners are entitled for equal treatment as per the mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as such by ignoring their request of extending them benefits, as per the restructured pay scales, they have been discriminated and this Court may interfere in such findings. Reliance was placed by them on an unreported judgment dated 2nd April, 2001 announced by this Court in Civil Petition No,12 of 2001, etc. (in the case of State Bank Employees).
4. Conversely learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation contended that petitioners on opting premature retirement under voluntary retirement scheme got additional benefits qua the employees who have not opted for premature retirement and they while exercising such option have filed undertakings, containing a condition i,e, not to claim right or entitlement for all times to case against the corporation in respect of any revised pay scales, allowances and fringe benefits, if granted by the Corporation to its all employees, therefore, petitioners after having retired from the Corporation would have no case against the Corporation for claiming benefit of revised pay scales.
5. We have heard petitioner's counsel in the case of Wali-urRehman, and the remaining petitioners who appeared in person and have also gone through the judgment wherein an undertaking has been given by the petitioners at the time of accepting extra pensionary benefits. A perusal whereof indicates that they are estopped under the law to put up any claim of whatsoever nature against the respondent-Corporation in respect of monetary gains in view of the revised pay scales. The petitioners, after having voluntarily accepting the premature retirement cannot be 'allowed to approbate and reprobate on the ground that after severing connection with the. Corporation, it has granted further monetary benefits to its employees. As far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel pertaining to State Bank's employees cases is concerned, it would not render any assistance, to them because in the said case no binding undertaking was given by the employees, therefore, being distinguishable on facts and law, discussed therein, its ratio decidendi cannot be applied on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In addition to it, it is also to be borne in mind that after having severed their connection with the respondent-Corporation, the petitioners legitimately cannot claim monetary benefits which respondent-Corporation is extending to its employees from time to time, depending upon the change circumstances, by the efflux of time and if the proposition put forward by the petitioners is accepted, then there would be no end to litigation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that petitioners are estopped by their conduct to claim the benefit of revised pay scales in view of the binding undertaking, which they have furnished at the time of accepting extra benefits on their premature retirement.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in these petitions, as such same are dismissed and leave declined.