MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- With. This judgment we shall decide the above tilted appeals as their facts are identical.
2. All the appellants are pensioners. On retirement their pension was fixed but 50% of their pension was deducted as a result of commutation. They were paid fifteen years pension in lump sum. The remaining 50% of the pension was paid to them every month. The Federal Government and the Provincial Governments allowed periodical increases on the pension they were receiving every month. When the commuted period of pension expired the respondents did not pay them the commuted pension with periodical increases. Their request for refutation of their pension and payment of arrears was rejected. Hence this appeal.
3. All the appeals are resisted by the respondents. It is stated that on restoration of commuted pension the appellants could not claim increases made during the period of commuted pension. It is vehemently argued by the respondents that on restoration of commuted pension, the appellants were entitled to claim pension as was admissible to them at the time of their retirement.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. A similar issue was taken to the Lahore High Court by Mr. A. A. Zuberi against Additional Accountant-General, Lahore. It was decided in his favour. The judgment of the High Court was reported as 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1211. The Accountant-General was not satisfied with the judgment of the Single Bench. He, therefore, filed in ICA which was also dismissed. The judgment of the Division Bench was reported as 2011 PLC (C.S.) 580. The Government was still not satisfied. It took the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The apex Court was pleased to dismiss the appeals vide order dated 10-12-2010. In this manner the judgments given by the Single Bench and the Division Bench of Lahore High Court were upheld. Mr. M. Ismail Tayer had retired as Additional Secretary Govt. Of Punjab. He made a similar claim for increase on his commuted pension. The Government of the Punjaband the Accountant General Punjab did not concede his claim. He was, therefore, compelled to file appeal in the Punjab Service Tribunal. Relying on the judgments of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan his appeal was accepted by Mr. Justice (RTD.)
Muhammad Jahangir Arshad, Chairman of Punjab Service Tribunal. The judgment is reported as PLJ 2011 Tr.C. (Services)
165. Thus the apex Court, the Lahore High Court and the Punjab Service Tribunal had upheld the claim of the petitioners for increase in their commuted pension. The respondents are not justified in stating that the judgments in favour of Mr. A.A. Zuberi and another officer by the name of Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi, who too had succeeded in getting the same relief, were in personam. We are of the view that the Hon'ble High Court had laid down a principle that the pensioners were entitled to increase of their commuted pension on completion of period of commuted pension. It is a well settled law that the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts and the Service Tribunals are to be extended even to the non-litigating parties.
Reliance is placed on Hameed Akhtar Niazi's case reported as (1996 SCMR 1185). The appellants are, therefore, justified in making prayer for the same relief which had been given to Mr. A.A. Zuberi, Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi and M. Ismail Tayer. If the appellants are not given the same relief, it shall tantamount to discrimination. Some officers shall be getting the benefit of increase in pension whereas the others would not get the same relief. This shall create an anomalous situation attracting the well established principle of law that there could be no discrimination and all the persons were entitled to equal protection of law as guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
6. The respondents have made a reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19- 12-2005. The Federal Service Tribunal had passed a judgment on 2-6-2003 in various appeals in which increase had been requested on gross pension. It was held by the Tribunal that the term 'net pension' was a misnomer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. It was held that the Tribunal had erred in ordering increase on gross pension. The Regulation Wing of the Finance Division of the Government of Pakistan had issued a letter on 9th, April, 2011 which was addressed to the Account-General Pakistan Revenues. On the strength of the aforementioned judgment of the apex Court dated 19-12-2005 it was stated that the increase in payment of pension was to be on gross pension and not on net pension. The recent judgment of the apex Court dated 10-12-2010 by which the appeals against the judgments of the Lahore High Court were dismissed was treated to be technical. The Finance Division had no authority to treat the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court date 10-12-2010 to be technical since with it the judgments of the High Court rendered by a Single Bench and thereafter by a Division Bench were upheld. Such judgments -had attained finality. All the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding under Article 189 of the Constitution. Thus, we are constrained to hold that the aforementioned letter dated 9-4-2011 issued by the Finance Division, sent to the Accountant General Pakistan Revenue, was misconceived. Instead of implementing the judgments of the High Court, confirmed by the apex Court an effort was made to refuse the relief to the pensioners.
7. Before parting with the judgment we shall reproduce verbatim the direction issued by the Lahore High Court in the case of Mr. A. A. Zuberi v. Additional Accountant General Pakistan Revenue, Lahore (2010 PLC (C.S.) 1211):-- "For the reasons mentioned above, I see the impugned action by the authorities as highly indiscriminate and violate of the right of civil servants and therefore declare the same without lawful authority, having no legal effect and direct the respondents to calculate the petitioner's revived pension amount reflecting the total increases from the date of expiry of period of 15 years i,e, with effect from 31-5-2008 and pay the arrears of the said period to the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any increase prior to 31-5-2008 i,e, the period of 15 years maturity.
' This writ petition is allowed in the above terms."
8. The findings recorded by the Punjab Service Tribunal are also germane to the facts of the present case. Para-9 is, therefore, reproduced:- "(9) The Accountant General Pakistan Revenue, Lahore assailed above noted both judgments of Hon'ble Lahore High Court before the apex Court through C.Ps. Nos.2393 and 2394 of 2010 but the same were dismissed on 10-12-2010 though on question of limitation yet the same amounted to maintaining the judgments of Lahore High Court, Lahore. Following the above noted judgments of the High Court as well as, apex Court, ' Accountant General Pakistan Revenues, Islamabad issued directive bearing No, Legal/Writ Petition No,2147/09/ LHC/SOL/ICA No,118 of 2009/162 dated 28-2-2010 conveying the approval of Controller General of Accounts to implement the Supreme Court order in letter and spirit. It is to be noted that Govt. Of Punjab itself sought clarification and the Government of Pakistan. Finance Division (Regulation Wing) through Letter No,F13(16)-Reg.612003-Voll 111-692 dated 10-9-2009 also confirm the plea of appellant, however, with slight modification that if the commuted portion of pension of a pensioner is restored in a particular financial year and no increase is made in that year no increase will be given in the case, meaning thereby that Govt. Of Punjab also followed the policy of the Federal Government in this respect."
9. In the light of judgments of the Lahore High Court, confirmed by the apex court and the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, we accept the appeals. The respondents are directed to determine the pension of the appellants from the date of restoration of their commuted pension at the rate at which they were drawing 50% remaining pension. The arrears shall also be paid to them. It is also clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim arrears for the period prior to restoration of their commuted pension.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Parties shall be informed accordingl