' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner was retired as Member Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan (BS-21) on 31-5-1993 and his pension was worked out at Rs,11,176.83. Petitioner's half pension was commuted for the period of 15 years and a sum of Rs,8,87,128 was paid to him as lump sum, which was to be recovered from him in 15 years and thus the petitioner was paid a pension of Rs,5,588 per month being half of the pension because the other half was to be adjusted towards the commuted pension paid to him in advance.
2. Petitioner's 15 years period was expired on 31-5-2008 and according to him the Government of Pakistan had not only recovered the entire amount recoverable from him but also recovered additional amount of Rs,3,26,689 over and above the recoverable amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the period of 15 years Government gave increases in pension at percentages from 5% to 20% and this benefit of increase was restricted by the Government to the payable half of his pension, although the increase should have been on the entire pension and in this way the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of increase to the tune of Rs,3,26,689. After expiry of 15 years the petitioner applied for restoration of his full pension and in response the pension is restored but the same is restricted to Rs,6,706 although after increase of pension from time to time the petitioner's one half receivable pension is Rs,17,428 and the restored one half pension should have been the same, meaning thereby that his pension should be double i.e, Rs,34,856 but the Government of Pakistan has refused to restore the pension as requested, which otherwise amounts to exploitation which is against all canons of justice and violative of the specific provisions of Constitution of Pakistan.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney General submits that the petitioner opted the scale on 1-6-1994 at the time of his retirement and his gross pension was worked out as Rs,11,176.90 out of which one half i.e, Rs,5,588.45 and the remaining net pension of Rs,5,588.45 was released vide office letter dated 14-11-1995. Further submits that one half of the gross pension was surrendered for 15 years in lieu of commutation for Rs,10,37,095.90 vide Rule No,F.D.O.M No,F.10(8)-Reg(6)/845 dated 25-6-1985 of Compendium of Pension Rules and Orders and it was not a recovery at all but a surrendered. Portion restorable equally on maturity of period i.e, 15 years in this case. So far increase in pension at varying percentages from 5% to 20% is concerned, learned Deputy Attorney General submits that it is not denied but the petitioner wags not entitled to any increase on 1-7- 1995 as he retired on 1-6-1993 but 5% increase was allowed to those who retired on 31-5-1993. Adds that the commutation was restored correctly but as a matter of grace the Government has restored Rs,5,588.45 +20% increase thereon. However, petitioner's pension cannot be doubled as only surrendered portion will be restored +20% increase thereon. Learned Deputy Attorney General while arguing his case has put more emphasis on Compendium of Pension Rules and Orders on the subject: "Restoration of Commuted Portion of Pension", which is reproduced as follows:-- "The undersigned is directed to state that under the existing rules a pensioner on his option can get his pension commuted upto a maximum of 50 per cent. In such cases Government pays commuted value of such portion of pension for a number of years according to age next birthday after retirement as shown in the Commutation Table. The President has been pleased to decide that commuted portion of pension to the extent of 1/4th of gross pension shall be restored w.e.f, Ist July, 1985 in the case of such civil pensioners including those paid from Defence Services Estimates who have already completed the number of years for which commuted value of pension was paid.
The 1/4th commuted portion of pension shall be restored in the case of those retiring in future on completion of the number of years for which commuted value is paid.
(2) In restoring the commuted portion of pension fraction of a year shown in the Commutation Table which is less than 6 months will be ignored and that of 6 months and more will count as one year.
(3) No arrears on account of restoration of commuted portion of pension will be payable in those cases in which the number of years paid for had been completed before 1st July, 1985."
5. Heard.
6. In this writ petition a retired civil servant is aggrieved of the decision of the relevant authorities in relation to the quantum of payment of his hard earned pension that has cumulated over a number of years in the civil service of Pakistan.
7. The petitioner in this case had opted to receive a lump sum amount equaling to 50% of the total pension i.e, "commuted amount", at the start of his pension period while the remaining 50% was to be paid through monthly payment for a period of 15 years as per law and at the end of 15 years his pension was to be revived to 100%.
8. The petitioner's grievance relates to the increases in his pension over a long period of time. 50% amount that the petitioner was getting prior to his 100% pension's revival, increased through various increases over a number of years and this was neither objected to by the authorities nor the petitioner. It was the authority itself that granted all increases in pension to the concerned civil servant on his 50% monthly payment which comes out to Rs,17,428 and this figure is not disputed even today by the departmental authorities. However, when time for revival of the pension to 100% came after a period of 15 years, the authorities have commuted and calculated the pension of petitioner on the basis of old amount without reflecting the changes i.e, the increases in his pension that have been taken place over a period of 15 years.
9. In my view, this action of the authorities is highly indiscriminate for firstly allowing the petitioner all such increases on the 50% monthly payments while reserving all such increases in the cumulative 50% revival amount. If the authority decided to increase the pension on 50% monthly payments and the petitioner drew the same increases throughout, then it cannot be allowed to go back on its own practice by nonreflecting such increases in the revived 50% amount after 15 years.
10. I see this action as an arbitrary action on the part of the authorities because it amounts to picking and choosing suitable financial options at the cost of hard working service rendered by the civil servants. Such arbitrary conduct of the authorities reflects from the bare fact that while reviving 100% pension, departmental authorities have added 20% to the petitioner's revived 50% pension of Rs,5,588.45 as per reply of the respondent against para No,6 but when confronted that how 20% increase is added instead of giving increases as per prayer of the petitioner, the departmental representative could not point out any rule, meaning thereby that adding 20% in revived 50% pension is just to keep the pensioners silent and whenever someone agitates, it is contended by the authorities that the pensioners had already been compensated through adding 20% to the revived pension and what else they be given. Practically the impugned action is violative of the principle of consistency as the reviving authorities on one hand continuously paid increases on 50% monthly instalments to the retired civil servant but on the other hand the said retired employee is being deprived of such increases in the revived 50% pension ignoring the well-settled principle of consistency.
11. It is held that the authority is estopped by its own actions because firstly it has reflected the increases in pension but at the time of revival of 100% pension it cannot be allowed to back out on its action and leave out the increases in the revived amount because this practice amounts to sheer exploitation of the employees and their service because a civil servant has worked almost all his life and served the Government to earn his right of pension and if the authority does not give him/her the requisite hard earned share, this would not only amount to exploiting the rights but also discourage such civil servant as a whole, therefore, in my view a civil servant's treasure that he has earned over a number of years in consideration of serving his department and if the government itself deprive the civil servant by finding indirect way, this would amount to exploitation and deprivation of a voidable treasure to which the retired civil servant is fully entitled at the end of his career.
12. The learned Deputy Attorney-General is repeatedly asked to refer any law or rule, whereby the action of the department can be endorsed, but he reiterates his contention by relying on the Compendium of Pension Rules and Orders, however, for his satisfaction he is allowed to read the provisions under the subject of Restoration of Commuted Portion of Pension, but after reading the same word by word, he could not point out any provision which could help the respondents.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, I see the impugned action by the authorities as highly indiscriminate and violative of the rights of the civil servants and therefore declare the same without lawful authority, having no legal effect, and direct the respondents to calculate the petitioner's revived pension amount reflecting the total increases from the date of expiry of period of 15 years i.e, with effect from 31-5-2008 and pay the arrears of the said period to the petitioner.
However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any increase prior to 31-5-2008 i.e, the period of 15 years maturity.
' This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.