' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have sought a direction to be issued to the respondents to treat the ad hoc relief of Rs,300, reckonable towards the pension of the petitioners and others in implementation of Notification, dated 15-3-1997, followed by Notification dated 2-3- 2006 and the order, dated 7-9-2006 passed by the respondents be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners and others were appointed in erstwhile Punjab Road Transport Board a statutery body created by law. The Board was dissolved on 9-5-1985 and the petitioners with others were placed in pool of the Government of Punjab, under Government of Punjab, Transport Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore through its Secretary-respondent No, 1.
Thereafter, the petitioners were put to work with Punjab Road Transport Corporation-respondent No,3 on the same terms and conditions of service. Respondent No,3 adopted Government of Punjab Employees Pension Rules, for all employees, working in the Organization and it was also resolved that all increases given to the Government servants, from time to time, will also be ipso facto granted to the employees of respondent No,3. It is further averred that, respondent No,2, vide Notification, dated 15-3-1997, conveyed the sanction of the Governor of the Punjab to the grant of ad hoc relief at the rate of Rs,300 per month to all civil servants in BS-1 to BS-16 with effect from 1-3- 1997, therefore, the petitioners became entitled to get the ad hoc relief with effect from 1-3-1997 as admissible to other Government servants of the Punjab. But, in the meanwhile, the petitioners and others were retired under Golden Handshake from service on 30-6-1997, thus, they were not paid the ad hoc relief till that date nor the ad hoc relief was treated for the purpose of pension, hence, this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that, the respondents were under legal obligation to implement and act upon the letter, dated 15-3-1997, issued by the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, granting ad hoc relief @ Rs,300 per month to all civil servants in BS-16 w,e,f, 1-3-1997 inclusive of those, who are in BS-17 by virtue of move-over till further orders. The representation, filed by the petitioners on 15-10-2006, to reckon the ad hoc relief of Rs,300 towards their pension in the light of decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Notification of the Finance Department, but the respondents failed to do the same. The respondents refused to grant increases in pension allowed by the Government of the Punjab to its retired civil servants, from time to time, on the pretext that, the retired employees of respondent No,3 were not eligible as those notifications were not adopted by respondent No,3. Further states that, on refusal of the respondents, the petitioners filed separate writ petitions in the Lahore High Court, seeking relief, which were accepted by holding the petitioners to be entitled to all periodical increases in the pension, which shall become part of the pension, already approved by the Government of the Punjab. The reasons adopted by the respondents in paras. Nos.5, 6 and 10 of order, dated 7-9-2006, for not reckoning ad hoc relief of Rs,300 towards calculation of pension in respect of retired employees/ petitioners and others are illegal, without jurisdiction without lawful authority and against the decision, already given by this Court, as well as Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Assistant Advocate-General opposed this writ petition contending that, the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be involved as the Punjab Road Transport Corporation is not governed by the statutory rules of the Government and in the absence of rules, the employees of Punjab Road Transport Corporation are governed by the law of Master and Servants, as such, writ petition is not maintainable, on the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases M.H. Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCM R 1024 and Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another 1994 SCM R 2232. This Court has already dismissed Writ Petition No,16622 of 2002 on the point of maintainability that the Punjab Road Transport Corporation is not governed by the statutory rules on the principle laid down in Writ Petition No,20890 of 2002; similar law has been taken in Writ Petition No,9704 of 2000, I.C.A. No,124 of 2001, which were dismissed on the same ground. The writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners opted for voluntary retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme and were paid all dues, as per terms and conditions of the scheme and according to their entitlement and now after lapse of nine years, their claim for payment of Rs,300 as ad hoc relief is unwarranted and hit by gross laches. It is further submitted that, the writ petition is also not maintainable, as the entire case of the petitioners is based on Notification, dated 15-3-1997, which is applicable to the civil servants, whereas, the petitioners were employees of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, which is a Private Corporation, having no statutory rules, as referred above. Even otherwise, this Notification is not applicable to the respondents-Corporation, as it has not been approved by the Board of Directors of the respondents-Corporation, as required under the Punjab Road Transport Corporation Services Rules, as such, this Notification is not applicable to the employees of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation. States that, the same view has been taken in Writ Petition No,18223 of 1995, thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Further argued that, the Board of Directors of the Road Transport Corporation adopted the Pension Rules of Punjab Government with effect from 1-1-1989 for its employees in its meeting held on 19-2-1989. On the winding up of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, its Board of Directors decided that, any increase in pension, which will be allowed by the Government of Punjab to the Civil pensioners, should also be ipso facto applicable to the Punjab Road Transport Corporation retired employees. Submits that, according to the Punjab Road Transport Corporation Rules, the Government Notification would not be applicable to the Corporation employees, unless they are specifically approved by its Board, which is the rule making authority, only with such modification or additions, as they deem fit and appropriate. Since, Notification, dated 15-3-1997 for the payment of ad hoc relief at the rate of Rs,300 per month was not approved by the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Board of Directors, hence, the said allowance was never paid to the employees, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merits as well as being not maintainable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the proceedings and documents annexed therewith. It is admitted position that, the petitioners were employees of the Punjab Road Transport Board, which was dissolved in the year 1985 and its employees were absorbed in the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913.
After the dissolution of the Punjab Road Transport Board, the P.U.T.C. Was renamed as P.R.T.C. And P.R.T.B. Did not exist anymore. It is also admitted that, Board of Directors of P.R.T.C. Decided to adopt the Pension Rules of Government of the Punjab with effect from 1-1-1989. On winding up of the Company, its Board of Directors decided to allow all increases, which will be allowed by the Government of the Punjab to its retired employees (Civil Pensioners), vide order, dated 25-3-1998.
This order finds mention of F.D.S.R's. Issued by the Government of the Punjab, dated 29-7-1990, 2-11- 1995 and 29-3-1997. Again vide letter, dated 22-3-2005, a letter issued by the Secretary Transport Managing Director, P.R.T.C. Informing the concerned that the Government of the Punjab has decided to give all increases in pension to the retired employees of P.R.T.C. As provided in letters, dated 27-7-1999, 25-10-2001, 11-7-2003 and 21-7-2005. All these letters speak about the increases in the pension of civil pensioners and not about any increase in the salary. The letter, dated 15-3-1997 was issued with regard to grant of ad hoc relief @ Rs,300 per month to all civil servants in BS-16 w,e,f, 1-3-1997 inclusive of those, who are in BS-17 by move-over till further orders in their salary.
Since it was not an increase in the pension, no claim was made by the petitioners. Even otherwise, this was not adopted by the Managing Director of P.R.T.C., to be included in the pay of the petitioners for calculation of pensionary benefits. The petitioners, for the first time, made a representation after the decision of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Managing Director Railways v. Muhammad Asghar C.P. No,3403 of 2001 a case of a Railway employee, who was given Rs,300 by the Government till he was given move-over from BS-16 to BS-17 with effect from 1-12- 1997 and the payment of Rs,300 per month increase in the salary was stopped. His appeal before the Service Tribtmal was accepted and the benefit of Rs,300 was ordered to be included in his salary. The order passed in C.P. No,414 of 1999 was implemented by the respondent-Railway (Government of Pakistan) and necessary amendment in the relevant circular was made vide office memo., dated 8-9-1999, which was endorsed by the Financial Department, Government of Pakistan, vide its office memo. No,F-4(61), legal 99, dated 15-9-1999. It was finally held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that, the increase reckoning of the increase of Rs,300 in the basic pay towards the pensionary emoluments of the respondent (employee). Muhammad Hashim and others filed Writ Petition No,3139 of 2006 at Multan Registry, which was disposed of by a learned single Judge, with the direction in the name of respondent No,4 to attend to the application of the petitioner, look into the law on the subject and decide the same. The petitioners also made representation on 15-10-2006 to reckon the ad hoc relief. The respondent-Managing Director of P.R.T.C., Lahore vide its order, dated 7-9-2000, rejected the representation and proceeded to hold that the employees of P.R.T.C. Were not in receipt of ad hoc relief at the time of their retirement, hence, this 'circular is not applicable on P.R.T.C. Employees. The petitioners corrigendum/reminder, submitted on the subject, was also not considered.
6. The same question was raised in Writ Petition No,10484 of 2001 titled as "Rana Abdul Razzak v.
Government of the Punjab", when increase in pension notified on 27-7-1999 was resisted by the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab. The learned Single Judge, after discussing the facts of the case proceeded to hold as under:-- "It is not disputed that increases in pension vide circular letters, dated 29-7-1990, 2-11-1995 and 29- 3-1997 were allowed to the retired employees of the P.R.T.C. While the last increase ' notified on 27- 7-1999 is being resisted by the Finance Department. The question which requires consideration and determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid increase.
' The view point of the Finance Department is reflected in the order of the Governor, dated 2-5-2001.
Perusal of the order, dated 2-5-2001 shows that on 8-2-1989, the Board of Directors of the P.R.T.C.
Had approved the grant of pension to the P.R.T.C. Which was affirmed by the Chief Minister Punjab on 1-3-1990. After the approval of the Chief Minister to the grant of pension to the P.R.T.C. Employees no further confirmation of the Finance Department was required because entitlement to pension of the P.R.T.C. Employees as approved by the Chief Minister included necessarily all periodical increase in pension, which become part of the pension already approved by the Government of the Punjab. It may be noted that when the Government of the Punjab decided to close the P.R.T.C., options for Golden Hand Shake were invited through public notices in the press. It was clearly held out that those employees of the P.R.T.C. Who had 26 years or more service will be entitled to the commuted pension as well as the monthly pension and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners the Golden Hand Shake dues were only by way of compensation for closing the P.R.T.C. These public announcements clearly reflected the decision and the commitment of the Government of the Punjab for the grant of pension to the eligible employees even after closure of the P.R.T.C. These public notices also stated that not only the Government of the Punjab had provided adequate funds to meet the expenditure for implementation of the Golden Hand Shake Scheme but also that for the purpose of timely payment of pension P.R.T.C.
Employees Pension Fund was being created in the State Bank of Pakistan. The aforesaid decisions find adequate support by the Notification, dated 26-9-1997 issued by order of the Governor of the Punjab which inter alia provided that:-- "Keeping this in view it has been decided to disband the Corporation and give effect of golden hand shake to the workers inclusive commutation and other allowable benefits."
' In the letter, dated 31-1-2000 of the Finance Department addressed to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in Writ Petition No,10744 of 1998 the said department stated it provides funds to the P.R.T.C. On a quarterly basis for payment of the pensionary dues to the P.R.T.C. Employees.
Further, "the Finance Department is committed to provide funds for pensionary dues to all eligible P.R.T.C. Employees and every effort to ensure timely payment of dues will be made." This letter was issued after issuance of the circular letter, dated 27-7-1999 and with this categorical commitment the Finance Department could not turn round and take an inconsistent position that increase in pension to the P.R.T.C. Retired employees was not confirmed by the Finance Department.
' Further observed that, not only the Chief Minister had approved the resolution of the Board of Directors to grant pension to the P.R.T.C. Employees, the notification, dated 26-9-1997 and the decision of the Government of the Punjab as reflected by the public notices referred to above clearly entitled the P.R.T.C. Employees to pension in accordance with the rules. In fact, increase in pension is not anything over and above the pension and, therefore, the stance of the Finance Department that increase in pension vide letter, dated 27-7-1999 was required to be confirmed by the Finance Department is not sustainable."
' The learned Judge further observed that, employees of a number of autonomous bodies and Corporations under the administrative control of the Government of the Punjab are in receipt of the benefit of increase in pension vide letter, dated 27-7-1999. It will, therefore, be apparently unjust and discriminatory that the retired employees of the P.R.T.C. Are denied the benefit of the increase.
' Having discussed the view point, taken by the Finance Department and the approval of the Chief Minister of the Punjab confirming the decision taken by the Board of the Government pensionary benefit to the employees of P.R.T.C. The learned Judge proceeded to hold that, the P.R.T.C., as a Company, was amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. However, undisputedly, the petitioners retired as the employees of the Company and, therefore, they cannot be held to be civil servants. Finally observed that, the aforesaid judgment in fact, supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since P.R.T.C. Was an agency and instrumentality of the Government of the Punjab its employees, for the purposes of the Pension Rules, have to be treated as servants of the Punjab Government. It may be noted that under the Pension Rules servants of the Government of the Punjab are entitled to pension and not necessarily the "civil servants".
7. This decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court was challenged by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, by filing Civil Petitions Nos.1370-L and 1374-L of 2004, however, on 24-3- 2005, Advocate-General, Punjab made statement before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties the civil petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.
8. The reasons for denial by the 'respondents in their letter, dated 7-9-2006 that no reckon ad hoc relief towards calculation of pension in respect of retired employees/petitioners is against the decision, already given by this Court in Writ Petition No,10484 of 2001. In the earlier matter, employees of the P.R.T.C., who were refused benefit of pensionary increase, were held to be entitled to receive the same by this Court and after withdrawing civil petitions from the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the same order attains finality and is binding on the parties. The present petitioners have been discriminated by the respondents by not allowing the pensionary benefits allowed to its employees by this Court in Writ Petition No,10484 of 2001, hence cannot be allowed to create discrimination amongst its employees and retired employees.
9. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the ad hoc relief of Rs,300 reckonable towards the pension of the petitioners and in the implementation of notification, dated 15-3-1997, followed by Notification, dated 2-3-2006 and order, dated 7-9-2006 passed by the respondents, is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and of no legal effect upon the rights of the petitioners. Writ Petition accepted.