' CH. MUHAMMAD TAR1Q, J.--- This single judgment shall dispose of ICA No,117 of 2008 and ICA No,118 of 2008 as both these appeals arise out of the one and the same order dated 2-4-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petitions Nos.4455 of 2006 and 9362 of 2006.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are employees of Special Education Department who were granted special allowance vide order dated 1-2-2005 on the same lines as the teaching staff of the Special Education Department was benefited vide order dated 21-2-2004. The respondents started receiving the said allowance till 24-4-2006 when the payment of said allowance was stopped and the already paid allowance to the respondents was ordered to be recovered declaring it unauthorized withdrawal by the respondents on the ground that the staff of Special Education Directorate/Department does not fall within the definition of "institution". The respondents filed Writ Petitions Nos.4455 of 2006 and 9362 of 2006 challenging the legality of order dated 24-4-2006. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 2-4-2008 accepted the writ petitions and set aside the letter/order dated 24-4-2006 declaring it as without lawful authority. Hence these ICAs.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab assisted by learned Law Officer of Special Education Department has mainly contended that the special allowance granted vide letters dated 21-2- 2004 and dated 1-2-2005 is meant only for the teaching and non- teaching staff of the special education institutions while DEO's and the staff of Directorate of Special Education do not fall within the definition of "institution", therefore, the order dated 2-4-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the Writ Petitions Nos.4455 of 2006 and 9362 of 2006 filed by the respondents be dismissed.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the instant ICAs on the ground that the ICAs are not competent being time barred while the appellants have not filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay, without which the delay cannot be condoned. Learned counsel argues that the order passed by the Government of Punjab for withdrawal of the special allowance to the respondents is without lawful authority and ineffective on the rights of the respondents which has rightly been set aside by the learned Single.
Judge, therefore, the ICAs be dismissed with costs.
5. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record to the extent available on file with their able assistance.
6. The order dated 21-2-2004 whereby the special allowance was allowed to the staff of Special Education Institutions is reproduced as under:-- "No,SO(B&D)10-2/2004.--- Governor of the Punjab is pleased to accord sanction for grant of 'Special Allowance' to the teaching staff of Special Education Institutions in Punjab equivalent to the initial of the Pay Scale in which the incumbent is drawing salary w.e.f, 1-1-2004."
7. Vide Order No,SO(B&D)10-2/2004 dated 1-2-2005, the Governor of the Punjab accorded sanction for the grant of special allowance to the non- teaching staff of institutions of Special Education in Punjab equivalent to the initial of Pay Scale in which the incumbent is drawing salary w.e.f, 7-9- 2004. The Order was subject to certain conditions which are reproduced as under:-- "(a) The special allowance allowed to non-teaching staff of Special Education institutions is taxable.
(b) It would not be counted/included towards the pension emoluments.
(c) It will not be admissible during L.P.R.
(d) It will be paid on monthly basis.
(e) It will not be counted towards recovery of House Rent."
8. Thereafter, the respondents started drawing the said special allowance till 24-4-2006 when all of sudden, the payment of special allowance was stopped on the ground that the special allowance to non-teaching staff of Directorate of Special Education Punjab and Special Education Department has not been recommended by the Finance Department because the non-teaching staff of Directorate does not fall within the definition of "institution".
9. To decide the fate of this case, we first go through the definition of "institution". The definition of "institution" provided in Oxford Dictionary is reproduced as under:-- "institution.--- n. 1 the act or an instance of instituting. 2a a society or organization founded esp. For charitable, religious, educational, or social purposes. b a building used by an institution. 3 an established law, practice, or custom. 4 colloq. (of a person, a custom, etc.) a familiar object. 5 the establishment of a cleric etc. In a church."
10. It is clear from the above definition of "institution" that it is not only the teaching staff but also all other members associated with the department fall within the definition of "institution". As such, the respondents are entitled to receive benefits in accordance with the orders dated 21-2-2004 and 1- 2-2005 issued by the Governor of the Punjab. Even otherwise, it is a glaring discrimination with the employees who are serving in the same department but are deprived of the said allowance.
11. The other important factor under consideration is that whether the benefit granted by the Governor of the Punjab could be recalled through an order passed by a Secretary or Deputy Secretary on the pretext, of non- approval of the summary by the Chief Minister. This view of the matter is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside because a Secretary/Deputy Secretary cannot revoke/withdraw any order passed by the Governor of the Province.
12. Adverting to the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeals are barred by limitation, the record reveals that the impugned order was passed on 2-4-2008. The period for filing of ICA provided under the law is 20 days, whereas the instant ICAs were filed on 25- 4-2008 with a delay of 4 days. In addition, the appellants have failed to file any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, without which the delay cannot be condoned under the law.
13. The outcome of the above discussion is that both the ICAs are dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs.