HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- The petitioners who were employees of respondent No, l's establishment were terminated on 10-6-2004 under the Compulsory Separation Scheme, which was introduced in compliance of the decision of the Government of Pakistan dated 10-6-2004. The benefits which were extended to such employees were included two additional gratuities for each completed year of service but such benefit was not given to the petitioners while clearing their dues at the time of termination of his service despite the fact that restoration of the said rates of gratuity was directed to be applied with retrospective effect vide order dated 11-5-2006. The petitioners applied before respondent No,1 for payment of applicable gratuity but with no response. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib where respondent No,1 has submitted a reply that."the subject-matter is already under consideration of SEC Management Pension Fund and PECO Board of Directors. There is about 40 similar cases, an amount of Rs,10 million is involved. It is hoped that the issue will be resolved in the next meeting which is expected to be held in the first week of May, 2007." But with no progress however, the matter was referred by respondent No,1 to its legal advisor who opined as under:--- "It may kindly be noted that the employees who have retired under the GHS after the issuance of Notification in September, 2003 would be entitled to revised rates of gratuity. In this regard, the date on which the employees have been relieved from service would be taken into consideration."
2. This opinion of the legal advisor was presented before the Board of PECO who declined the petitioners' request.
3. So far the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib is concerned, only on the point of jurisdiction the petitioners' request was turned down and it was observed that petitioners if not satisfied could approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances, now this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that old rates of gratuity to officers not entitled to pension having been restored by the competent authority with retrospective effect vide order dated 27-9-2003 passed by the Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan so the petitioners relieved from their service under the Compulsory Separation Scheme dated 10-6-2004 and 31-3- 2005 respectively would not be denied benefits of such office order on the ground that office order dated 11-5-2006 issued by the State Engineering Corporation is not applicable to the officers of the State Engineering Corporation and its units who had already left the job. Further submits that the impugned matter pertains to mere implementation of the orders made by the concerned Ministry, Government of Pakistan but unfortunately the petitioners are being discriminated due to arbitrary exercise of powers of discretion.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have already received complete dues/terminal benefits and that too without any protest so they are estopped by their own conduct to agitate the impugned matter, even their claim was rejected by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib. Further submits that the letter of State Engineering Corporation referred by the petitioners regarding revision of pay scales and office order dated 11-5-2006 pertains to restoration of gratuity rates were not meant in the respondents' company so the petitioners cannot be held entitled for the claim as prayed for.
6. Arguments heard; record perused.
7. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners' matter has already been decided by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib and the petitioners cannot complain against the same through the writ, suffice it to say that the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib held "the matter raised in the complaint pertained to personal grievance of the complainant in relation to his service in the Agency and such matters cannot be investigated by the Mohtasib [Article 9(2) of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib Order 1983, Federation of Pakistan v. Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan 2007 SCM R 1313, and Civil Aviation Authority v. Wafaqi Mohtasib PLD 2001 Kar. 304 refer].
8. In view of this finding, the petitioners cannot be estopped to approach this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 if the petitioners feel aggrieved.
9. So far the present case is concerned it shall be useful to reproduce the office order dated 11-5- 2006 issued by the State Engineering Corporation which is as follows:--- "Office order Restoration of Gratuity Rates.
' In the light of clarification received from Ministry of Industries, Production and Special Initiatives, vide its letter No,7(1)AO(C)/2003 dated September 27, 2003 the competent authority is pleased to restore with retrospective effect, the following gratuity rates in respect of officers of SEC/units, which were earlier revised vide SE letter No,P.O1(1009) dated May 13, 2002. {{TABLE}} Qualifying Period of Service Rate of Gratuity
1. From 3 to 10 years 30 days basic pay
2. Over 10 years and up to 15 years 45 days basic pay
3. Over 15 years 60 days basic pay {{TABLE}} ' The revised gratuity rates shall be admissible only to those officers who are not entitled to pension, as per SEC Management Pension Fund Rules. Other terms and conditions for payment of gratuity shall remain unchanged.
(Sarfraz Edwin)
' Deputy General Manager (A&HR)."
10. It is well-settled law laid down by the Honourable Supreme IF Court of Pakistan that if a thing is to be done in a particular manner it must be done in that manner only and not otherwise.
11. It is also well-settled law that only violation of codified law is not the only ground for the interference by this Court rather the Government/Government owned departments' instructions/office memorandums have also the status of law and these must be adhered to.
12. If the prayer of the petitioners in the present writ petition is perused whereby the petitioners' claim that "refusal of the respondents to pay the petitioners' gratuity at the rate of 60 days per year of their earned service be declared without lawful authority" and the petitioners' length of service with respondent No, 1 's taken into consideration then it shall be clear that the petitioners are also entitled for the gratuity at the rate of 60 days per year against their qualifying period of service.
13. After hearing both the parties and perusal of record I am of the considered view that the discretion exercised by the respondents in the impugned matter was not a proper and in a transparent manner rather the petitioners are deprived of their right of gratuity in an arbitrary manner. Accordingly the refusal to pay gratuity at the rate of 60 days per year to the petitioners is declared illegal, the petitioners are held entitled for the relief claimed for as per prayer in the writ petition.
' The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.