This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No, 631 of 2003 (Jabbar Ali etc. vs. TMA & another) and Writ Petition No, 1024 of 2004 (Nisar Ahmad vs TMA & another) as both these petitions involve similar facts and circumstances.
2. Brief facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners were the employees of Town Committee, Khaipur Tamewali, District Bahawalpur, which stands replaced by Tehsil Municipal Administration under the new local government set up. They became surplus due to abolition of Zila Tax and Octroi Tax. Vide letter dated 20.8.1999, issued by the Government of the Punjab, Local Government & Rural Development Department, Lahore, such employees were offered option to retire voluntarily with benefits admissible under the rules. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, they were retired but were given pensionary benefits after a considerable delay. The grievance of the petitioners is that out of the pension fund of the employees of the Town Committee, thirteen Saving Certificates, valuing Rs,4,26,180/- were purchased in the year 1994, which became Rs, 12,57,135/- after adding the profit accrued thereon and the petitioners were entitled to get profit at the rate of rupees eleven per cent which was gained by the respondents with effect from the date of their retirement till the date of release of their gratuity, as the same was not released to them in time by implementing the order of this Court passed in Writ Petitions No, 1538 & 68 of 2001 on 27.11.2002,
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to Section 34-A of the CPC, the petitioners are entitled to get profit over the amount of gratuity. Before proceeding further, I would like to reproduce the aforesaid Section 34-A, which reads as under:-- "34-A. (1) Where the Court is of opinion that a suit was instituted with intent to avoid payment of any public dues payable by the plaintiff or on his behalf the Court may, while dismissing such suit, make an order for payment of interest on such public dues at the rate of two per cent, above the prevailing bank rate.
(2) Where the Court is of opinion that recovery of any public dues from the plaintiff was unjustified, .the Court may, while disposing of the suit, make an order for payment of interest on the amount recovered at the rate of two per cent, above the prevailing bank rate.
Explanation. --In this section,--
(a) "bank rate" means the bank rate determined and made public under the provisions of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 (XXXIII of 1956); and
(b) "public dues" include the dues of any bank owned by the Federal Government or of any corporation or undertaking owned or controlled by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or of any local authority."
The afore-quoted provision of law reveals that it relates to the public dues payable to the Government and as such, the same is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Even otherwise, a perusal of the above referred order of this Court reveals that no direction was ever given therein by this Court to the respondents for making payment of gratuity to the petitioners along with the profit/interest. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:-- "The respondent-Tehsil Municipal Officer (Mr. Abdul Ghani) is directed to get encashed the above referred Defence Saving Certificates and disburse the pension/gratuity benefits to all "the petitioners including Nazar Hussain and Noor Muhammad retired employees who have not approached this Court."
Thus, it is clear that only the pension/gratuity benefits were to be paid to the petitioners and not the interest/profit due to delayed payment. It is also worthwhile to mention here that at the time of receiving pension/gratuity benefits, none of the petitioners raised any objection or refused to receive the same without profit.
5. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are not entitled to get any profit/interest over the amount of gratuity due to delayed payment/release; and that they have been rightly paid the pension/gratuity benefits. Resultantly both these petitions are found to be without any substance and are dismissed accordingly.