Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.--These appeals, by leave of this Court, are directed against the judgment dated 20.02.2009 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in C.P. No, D-2241 of 2006, D-1849 to D-1854, D-2033, D-262, D-1268 & D-1337 of 2007 & D2160 of 2008, judgment dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in W.P. No, 9002 of 2006 and order dated 03.09.2004 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals No, 1301 & 1302(L) of 1999, whereby the Constitutional Petitions and the appeals filed by the respondents were allowed and they were granted the relief prayed for therein.
2. The facts in Civil Appeals No, 109-K to 120-K of 2010, arising out of judgment dated 22.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Hyderabad in C.P. No, D-707 of 2009 are that the respondents were permanent employees of the appellant-Bank and were working in different officer grades.
The appellant-Bank, vide Circular No, 75 of 1997 dated 18.08.1997 announced a "surplus pool" and declared a large number of employees as surplus. Later on, vide circular dated 13.10.1997, a "Golden Handshake Scheme" (hereinafter referred to as the GHS") was introduced whereby the employees were given an offer to opt out of service on receipt of a handsome package. The scheme was optional and the employees had to submit their applications for availing separation from service under the said scheme, which was subject to acceptance by the Bank. Many of the employees including the respondents submitted their applications on the prescribed form, which were accepted by the Bank. Accordingly, the Bank worked out the dues payable to the respondents, which were disbursed to the respective employees. After receiving the said amount, each employee issued a certificate to the effect that he had received the entire amount due to him under the GHS and that he had no further claim against the Bank. In the year 2006, the respondents filed Constitutional Petition in the High Court of Sindh praying therein that they may be declared to be entitled to payment of ad hoc relief c 100% and 110% of basic pay on the date when they were actually relieved from duty, the annual increments accruing in the meantime, bonus and other financial benefits and facilities extended to the employees of the Bank during the period, and that the Bank may be directed to calculate their pensionary/retirement benefits on the basis of their last drawn pay, duly merging the ad hoc relief as also the revised pay scales w,e,f, 01.01.1999. A learned Division Bench of the High Court, vide the impugned judgment, relying upon judgment of this Court in NBP v. Siddique Akbar (CPLA No, 350 of 2000 decided on 10.11.2003), Khyber Zaman v.
Governor, State Bank of Pakistan (PLJ 2004 SC 839) and Tarachand v. Karachi Water & Sewerage Board (SBLR 2005 SC 47) granted the relief prayed for.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment/order, the Bank approached this Court by means of Civil Petitions No, 324-K to 353-K of 2009, wherein leave was granted vide order dated 08.05.2009 to consider, inter alia, whether the High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in view the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution in respect of the terms and conditions of service of employees governed by the statutory rules and granting the relief prayed for.
4. In Civil Appeal No, 54-L of 2009, the respondent, an EVP with the Bank opted for the GHS and his retirement benefits were disbursed vide memorandum dated 19.09.1998. Aggrieved by the calculations and certain deductions, the respondent filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal and got a direction issued to the Bank to decide his appeal/representation vide judgment dated 26.06.2001 passed in Appeal No, 110-L/1999 filed on 01.02.1999. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 13.02.2002 in W.P. No, 22021/2001 filed by the respondent declined his prayer for grant of mark up on the insurance amount of Rs,462,5000. The Federal Service Tribunal vide order dated 1.12.2003 passed in Appeal No, 474(L)A(C.E.)/2001 directed the Bank to re-calculate his pensionary benefits in his presence. Again, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 13.07.2005 passed in Appeal No, 57(L)(C.E.)/2004 issued the same direction to the Bank to make calculations in his presence. He then filed Writ Petition No, 9002 of 2006 in the Lahore High Court, which was partly allowed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2008 and a direction was issued to the Bank to calculate his financial benefits up till 31.08.1998, i,e, the date up to which he served with the. Bank. Leave to appeal against the above judgment was granted by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2009 in CPLAs No, 1854-L & 1951L of 2008.
5. In Civil Appeals No, 726 & 727 of 2009, the respondents, having exercised option under the GHS were relieved from the service of the Bank on 20.07.1998 and were disbursed the dues. Their grievance before the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals No, 1301(L) & 1302(L) of 1999 filed by them was that they were deprived of the benefit of pay revision under the pay package introduced on 16.06.1999. The Tribunal, vide separate judgments of even date 03.09.2004, directed the Bank to recalculate his dues on the emoluments which they were actually drawing on the date they were relieved from duty. Leave to appeal against the above judgments was granted by this Court vide a common order dated 03.06.2009 passed in CPLAs No, 2181 & 2182 of 2004.
6. Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Sr. ASC, learned counsel for the appellant Bank contended that the calculations of the GHS were made on the basic pay declared by the respondents in their application form on the cut off date, i,e, 25th October 1997 and the respondents had given a binding commitment to the Bank that after the receipt of the dues so worked out, they did not have any further claim against the Bank. He argued that the respondents were aware of the fact that the ad hoc relief was admissible with effect from 01.01.1998 to all permanent and confirmed employees of the Bank vide circular dated 27.02.1998, excluding those who had opted for the GHS, therefore, while drawing pensionary benefits under the GHS, none of them had raised the said issue. He submitted that the calculation of financial benefits under the GHS effective from December 1997 was upheld by this Court in the cases of S.M. Tanveer Nusrat v. National Bank of Pakistan (CPLA No, 2461-L/2002), Rana Abdul Ghafor v. President, National Bank of Pakistan (CPLA No, 3378-L/2001) and Naseem Arif Abbasi v. National Bank of Pakistan (CPLA No, 1028-K/2001), the impugned judgments were per incuriam on account of non-consideration of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, and that a similar view was taken by the Federal Service Tribunal also in a number of cases. He also contended that the writ petitions were incompetently filed before the learned High Courts in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution and the law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam (PLD 2006 SC 602) and Muhammad Idree's case (PLD 2007 SC 681), as the appellant Bank was a statutory body and was governed by the statutory rules of service.
7. Mr. Noor Muhammad Khan Chandio, ASC for the appellant Bank in C.A. No, 54-L/2009 adopted the arguments made by Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Sr. ASC.
8. Mr. Fakharuddin G. Ebrahim, Sr. ASC, learned counsel for the respondent-employees in Civil Appeals No, 109-K to 115-K, 117-K, 188-K & 120-K/2009 vehemently contended that his clients were entitled to be paid financial benefits till the date when they were actually relieved from service and being similarly placed and having identical claims, they could not be discriminated as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. The learned counsel submitted that though the respondent- employees had opted under the GHS, .but they were not relieved from duty by the cut off date, therefore, like other employees they were continued in service and on no principle of law and equity they could be excluded from the admissibility of ad hoc relief or other benefits accruing subsequently to the employees on the payroll of the Bank, and this Court in Siddique Akbar and Khyber Zaman (supra) rightly directed the Bank to calculate the benefits of the employees from the date when they were actually relieved from service. The learned counsel argued that the principle of laches was not attracted in the instant cases in view of the law laid down in Tarachand (supra). It was next argued that the bar of jurisdiction could not be pressed into service because appeals of a large number of employees were returned firstly under an administrative order passed by the Registrar, Federal Service Tribunal and subsequently in pursuance of the judicial order passed by the Tribunal itself in view of the law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and Muhammad Idrees, It was finally submitted that in any case the mainstay of the grievance of the respondents was the discriminatory treatment meted out to them for which there existed no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
9. M/s. Muhammad Akram Khawaja and Qari Abdul Rashid, ASCs for the respondents in Civil Appeals No, 54-L and 727 of 2009 adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Sr. ASC.
10.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused, the impugned judgments as also the cases cited at the Bar.
11.Admittedly, the respondents had opted for retirement as per the GHS introduced by the appellant Bank, which provided, inter alia, as under:-- "GOLDEN HANDSHAKE SCHEME National Bank of Pakistan announces its Golden Handshake Scheme with the terms and conditions and features of participation:--
4. Time period: The Golden Handshake Scheme will be open/available for participants from October 14, 1997 to October 25, 1997.
8. Provident Fund payment: Complete and up to date contribution of provident fund contributed by the employee will be made in lump sum irrespective of their age.
Facilities to executives for six months after separation: An executive opting for this scheme will upon separation be treated as if he had retired from the bank's service in accordance with the rules normally applicable and shall be paid in advance for his entitlement for a period of six months to utilities, transport, furniture and residence/rent at the rate presently applicable to him.
The car and furniture will also be offered to him for sale as per existing rules.
It is also pertinent to refer to the Option Form executed by the employees, which reads asunder: "The terms and conditions and features of the Golden Handshake Scheme with special separation package announced by National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) has been read and understood by me. I have found the scheme lucrative enough to participate. I would therefore like to opt for the scheme of my free will. I do understand and agree that on receipt of the benefits of the scheme, I will not have any claim of whatsoever nature, financial and/or otherwise on or against NBP upon receiving benefits of this scheme."
Aware of such crystal clear position, none of the respondents, while accepting the retirement benefits worked out under the GHS had raised the issue of any other dues, and rightly so. The ad hoc relief announced subsequent to the GHS or other benefits as allegedly accruing to them were, not admissible to them in view of the specific provisions contained in the relevant instruments, namely, the GHS and the Circular granting the ad hoc relief, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the dues would be disbursed in full and final settlement of their claims, and that the ad hoc relief would not be admissible to those employees who had already availed benefit under the GHS.
12. Correct, that a 2-Member Bench of this Court in Siddique Akbar's case directed the appellant Bank to calculate the retirement benefits of the employees up to the date when they were actually relieved from service and review petition against the said order was also dismissed, but it is noteworthy that in the said case, only leave was declined and no binding law in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution was laid down. On the other hand, this Court in the cases of S.M. Tanveer Nusrat v. National Bank of Pakistan (CPLA No, 2461-L/2002, Rana Abdul Ghafoor v. President, National Bank of Pakistan (CPLA No, 3378-L/2001) and Naseem Arif Abbasi v. National Bank of Pakistan (CPLA No, i028-K/2001) held that after having executed discharge and no demand certificate the employees were not entitled to prefer any further claim against the Bank. It is noteworthy that the judgment in S.M. Tanveer Nusrat (supra) was rendered by a 3-Member Bench while the judgments/orders granting relief to the employees were rendered by 2-Member Benches. The 3-Member Bench, in Para 3 of the judgment, held as under: The petitioner being entitled to monetary benefit from the cut-off date, i,e, 31.10.1997 would not be entitled to claim such benefit from 5.12.1998 considering that he himself stated that he would have no further claim against the respondent whatsoever financial or otherwise. The petitioner before the Tribunal has also accepted the judgment pronounced earlier as mentioned in the impugned judgment, therefore, he could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate."
The said 3-Member Bench judgment was prior in time but was not referred to in any of the subsequent judgments. It is well-settled that in case of conflict between judgments of Supreme Court, the judgment of larger Bench prevails. If any authority is needed reference may be made to Atta Ullah v. Mst. Surraya Parveen (2006 SCM R 1637), Sardar Muhammad Nawaz v. Firdous Begum (2008 SCM R 404), Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation v. Hamayun Irfan (2010 SCM R 1495), etc. Even otherwise, the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in the impugned judgment misread the judgment of this Court in Khyber Zaman's case (supra). In the said case, the respondents had opted for. GHS floated by the appellant-State Bank on 23.10.1997 and on acceptance thereof. They were relieved from service on 15.12.1997. On 07.11.2000, the Bank issued Circular No, 20 whereby the employees were allowed increased monthly grant under the State Bank of Pakistan Employees Benevolent Fund Scheme. The respondents who had retired with effect from 15.12.1997 after exercising option under the GHS requested the Bank to pay them the benefits of increased Benevolent Fund Grant (BFG) as admissible under Circular N6.
20. It was held that Circular No, 20 could not be given retrospective effect, which could be invoked only by those employees who were entitled to get such BFG on 01.09.2000 when admittedly the respondents were not in service and stood retired w,e,f, 15.12.1997. It was further held that once the option was exercised by the employees of the State Bank under the GHS, they would have no concern whatsoever with the subsequent changes and amendments in the policy/rule qua BFG, especially after 15.12.1997, i,e, the date of their retirement. The respondents should not have exercised their option for GHS if they were interested in getting BFG for fifteen years. The respondents had not only exercised the option but had also received the amount as well without any protest worth the name.
In such circumstances, the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Hameed Akhtar Niazi and Tarachand (supra) would also not be applicable in the instant cases, which are to be decided on the basis of their own facts and circumstances.
13. In the above background, writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Sindh and the Lahore High Court, which were allowed by the impugned judgments. But the fact of the matter is that the respondents, having exercised the option to retire under the GHS, were deemed to be retired from service on and from the cut-off date. On that score, they could not be treated at par with those employees who had not exercised such an option and were still continuing in service. A reasonable classification in terms of the law laid down by this Court in LA. Sharwani's v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 1041) did exist between the two categories of employees, i,e, those who had exercised the option and those who had not exercised the option. As such, the learned counsel for the respondents failed to point out discrimination prohibited under Article 25 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the appellant Bank has rightly contended that at the time of receiving the pensionary benefits worked out under the GHS, none of the respondents had raised the issue of admissibility of the ad hoc relief granted subsequently. Rather, all of them had received the said dues without any objection on that score. Thus, they could not have competently resorted to legal proceedings, either before the Service Tribunal or before the High Court, that too after efflux of a long time in many of the cases, for the purpose of getting such ad hoc relief or other emoluments, such as annual increments etc., taken into consideration and getting the retirement benefits recalculated. In this view of the matter, no valid grievance could be made on account of the fact that they were actually relieved from service on a subsequent date. The fact remains that they were paid emoluments in full for the period they worked after they had opted for retirement under the GHS and had received the retirement benefits accordingly. Thus, on merits no case is made out in favour of the respondents.##TE#3
14. As regards the question of jurisdiction agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant Bank, suffice it to observe that rio useful purpose will be served by going into the said question, particularly when leave was granted, not on the question of jurisdiction alone, but also to examine the merits of the case. We have independently considered the merits of the case, and, in our view, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the case either after such a long period.
15.As a result of the above discussion, the titled appeals filed by the National Bank of Pakistan are allowed, the judgments/orders impugned therein are set-aside and the parties left to bear their own costs.
16.Above are the reasons for the short order dated 15.12.2010. 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.