' IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through the present constitutional petition Kanwar Ahmad Khan and five others petitioners, being employees in the office/offices of the District Attorneys as well as Solicitor Department seek a direction to the respondents to allow/sanction the judicial allowance to them being admissible equal to the members of the establishment of this Court, Punjab Bar Council, office of the Advocate-General, Punjab in the light of judgment passed by this court on 10- 6-2008 in Writ Petition No,2237 of 2008 w.e.f, 25-9-2008.
2. The grievance voiced by the petitioners through this writ petition is that they being the employees in the offices of District Attorney functioning under the Solicitor of the Punjab, respondent No,4 are not being granted judicial allowance as their case is at par with that of the employees of the Lahore High Court, Punjab Bar Council and the Advocate-General Punjab but the petitioners are being discriminated despite the fact that they are also assisting the courts and come within the meaning of court staff.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the staff as well as officers of honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan employees of the Courts and the employees of the office of Advocate- General are being given the judicial allowance, so much so, the Government Balochistan vide order, dated 6-12-2005 allowed the judicial allowance to the employees of the Advocate-General Office Balochistan as 'well as the employees of the offices of District Attorneys but the petitioners are being discriminated, as such, the petitioners are also entitled to be granted judicial allowance.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General while opposing this petition contends that the petitioners are employees of the Government of Punjab and are governed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and they are neither employees of this court nor a part of judicial cadre, as such, their claim is legally impermissible, that no discrimination is being met with the petitioners as they are comparing themselves with the employees of this Court whereas the fact of the matter is that the employees of this Court as well as the petitioners are two diverse and clearly classified groups and are being administered by two different organs of the State under different dispensation because this court is an independent constitutional institution which has been authorized to determine the terms and conditions of its employees whereas the terms and conditions of service, including salary and allowances in the case of petitioners and their colleagues in the office of Soclicitor are being regulated under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder, that refusal or grant of any allowance is a policy matter/decision of the Government and as per the law laid down in Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Indo Pakistan Corporation Ltd. And others PLD 1979 SC 723 is not amenable to challenge in writ jurisdiction that the petitioners and their colleagues in the Solicitor's Department have been allowed 50% of the pay as special allowance with effect from 1-7-2010 and the said benefit has not been extended to the employees of this court, as such, the petitioners are not at all entitled to the relief claimed by them in this constitutional petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available record. There is no cavil to the proposition that the grant or refusal of a particular allowance is a policy of the Government which cannot be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction as per the law laid down in Muhammad Farid Khatak v. Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. And others 2009 SCMR 980 and Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Indo-Pakistan Corporation Ltd. And others PLD 1979 SC 723.
6. Admittedly the petitioners fall under the administrative control of the Government of Punjab whereas the employees of this Court are not under the administrative control of Government Punjab as such no discrimination is being met with the petitioners as the petitioners and the employees of this Court are administered by two different organs of the State under different dispensation because this court is an independent constitutional institution which has been authorized to determine the terms and conditions of its employees whereas the terms and conditions of service, including salary and allowances in the case of petitioners and their colleagues in the office of Solicitor are being regulated, under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder. On this score also this constitutional petition is not maintainable as the fixation of pay and allowance squarely falls within the domain of terms and conditions of a civil servant.
7. There is another aspect of the matter which goes a long way to show that the petitioners and their colleagues in the Solicitor's department have been allowed 50% of the pay as special allowance with effect from 1-7-2010 but the said benefit is not being given to the employees of this Court. As far as the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely Sadaqat Ali v. Punjab Government 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1047 is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon in view of the latest law laid down by a learned Division Bench of this Court in its order, dated 28-4-2010 passed in Intra-Court Appeal No,955 of 2009 titled Tariq Mehmood and 6 others v. Government of Punjab and 3 others.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that I am of the considered view that this writ petition is not maintainable as such, the same is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.