MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.--This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 29th of May, 1978, by which Writ Petition No. 41 of 1978 was dismissed.
2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that the appellant, who served in the Education Department of the Government of West Pakistan, retired, after completing 30 years of service, on 1st of April, 1968.He earned his full pension which amounted to Rs. 643.71 and under rule 4.6 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, he surrendered 1/4th of it-equivalent to Rs. 164.40 and received an amount of Rs. 19,256.60 as gratuity at the rate of Rs. 120 for each rupee surrendered.
The net pension thus due to him was Rs. 481.30 which, after three revisions on 1st of August, 1973, 8th of June, 1974 and 7th of April, 1975, swelled to Rs. 641.70. On the promulgation of Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, ' 977, on l0th of February, 1977, option was given to him by rule 7 to choose one of the two alternatives provided therein and he chose the second alternative by which, according to the criterion laid down, he claimed to be entitled to receive Rs. 833.78 but his representations were turned down by the Accountant-General, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar, by letter dated 21st of May, 1977. According to it, the 1/4th surrendered value of his pension was deducted for which gratuity at the rate of Rs. 160.40 per rupee" had already been paid to him. He was thus entitled to receive Rs. 673. It further transpires from this letter that his claim was "that 25 % of gross- pension of Rs. 641.70 which comes to Rs. 160.40 is to be added again" but he was not able to point out any Rule by which the 1/4th surrendered value of the gross pension for which gratuity had already been paid should be added to the revised pension under the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants.
3. Not being satisfied with the decision of the Accountant-General, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar, he filed the aforementioned writ petition to challenge its correctness on the ground that in rule 7(ii) of the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, there is no mention of any deduction of the I/4th surrendered value of the pension which was paid as gratuity from the gross --pension which was not without a purpose for such pensioners who were alive, had actually paid back the amount of gratuity received by them in lieu of the 1/4th surrendered, from the gross-pension at the time of retirement. The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition held :- " ------.Admittedly, the petitioner, at the time of his retirement, was being governed by these Pension Rules of 1963. Moreover, if a Government servant once surrendered 1/4th of his pension from his gross pension and receives a gratuity in lieu thereof, is not entitled to the pay--ment of full pension at any future stage irrespective off the fact that he has repaid the entire gratuity so received by him as there exists no such provision in law."
As to his plea that under the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, a pensioner is entitled to the refund of the gratuity so as to enable him to receive his gross pension, the High Court further held: "The contention of the petitioner that in view of the change in the Pension Rules, a pensioner under the law is entitled to refund of gratuity which has not yet been paid back and to get his gross pension restored has not only no force but is rather fallacious inasmuch as the petitioner has not at all been able to quote any such rule nor we have been able to lay our hands upon. Furthermore, the gratuity is not of the nature of a loan or advance to be re-paid. It is positively in the nature of financial help/benefit to the retiring Government servants which amount is paid to them in lump sum in order to enable them to settle in their new life without facing any financial difficulties. Had it been in the nature of an advance or loan then the Government would have stipulated a condition that on the death of a retired person before the payment of such advance or loan, the unpaid amount would be recovered from his heirs."
4. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the sum of Rs. 160.40 could be deducted from the gross pension in terms of rule 7 of the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, 1977.
The petitioner, in support of his contention that the sum of Rs. 160.40 could not be deducted from the gross pension, relied firstly, on the words "receive" and "existing gross pension" in rule 7(ii) of the Rules; and secondly, the absence of words to the effect as to the deduction of this sum from the gross pension in this sub-rule. Rule 7(ii) reads : "(ii) To receive an increase of 5 per cent. (in the case of employees who retired between 1st July, 1963 and 29th February, 1972) or 121 (in case of employees who retired upto 30th June, 1963), over their existing gross pension plus dearness increase admissible thereon. For the purpose of these commutations, the average emoluments, as calculated at the time of retirement, will remain the same. Gratuity will not be revised or re-calculated. Commutation will be allowed on the basis of the original gross pension."
On the other hand, it was urged by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, N.-W. F. P., that by rule 12 of the 1977 Rules, the existing Rules that is the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, were modified to the extent indicated and, therefore, 1/4th value surrendered under' rule 4 of 1963 Rules was irrevocable for which gratuity was given which was A neither an advance nor a loan and hence the consideration that it had been re-paid was irrelevant; and for this conclusion he relied on the following words in the sub-rule :- For the purpose of these commutations, the average emoluments, as calculated at the time of retirement, will remain the same. Gratuity will not be revised or re-calculated."
Having set out the respective contentions of the parties, it arises for, consideration as to whether the words "receive" and "existing gross pension" spell out the sense, when read together, that the 1/4th value of the gross pension surrendered at the time of the retirement stood restored. It is the principle of interpretation that the Rule has to be read as a whole for spelling out as to what it conveys; and, therefore, the words which folio those on which the appellant relies have also to be taken into consideration. They unequivocally show that neither the average emoluments could be disturbed nor gratuity could be revised or re-calculated. It may her be mentioned that the provision of gratuity has been made optional under rule 4(b) for those officers who retired after the coming into force o the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, 1977, which is not the same as in the case of those who had retired between 1st of July, 1963, and 29th of February, 1972, as by the use of the words "gratuity will not be revised or re-calculated" in rule 7(11) the framers intended to preserve the 1-/ath surrendered in lieu of the gratuity paid to the pensioner. Therefore, it is not correct to contend that there is nothing to justify the deduction in the sub-rule. Accordingly, after allowing the 5 % increase in the gross pension and other admissible increase the 1/4th value for which gratuity was paid has necessarily to be deducted from the total amounting to Rs. 833.78. On this view of the matter the consideration of its having been repaid does not arise for it was neither an advance nor a loan. The contention of the learned Assistant Advocate-General, N.-W. F. P., has substance and I agree with it. The deduction of Rs. 160.40, by the Accountant-General, N.-W. F. P., was therefore, rightly made under rule 7(ii) of the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, 1977.
5. Lastly, the appellant made grievance of the fact that the High Court had misunderstood his submission to mean that he was asking for the addition the 114th surrendered value as a charity which he has taken pains to clarify that it was not so as whatever he submitted was in support of his legal right to receive a higher amount. However, nothing turns on it.
There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal which is dismissed but with no order as to costs.