Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, J.--Through the ICAs mentioned above, the appellants have assailed the consolidated order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, whereby CrI.Org. No. 538-W of 2009 and Crl.Org.No. 539-W of 2009 were dismissed.
2. The facts in brief as emerge on perusal of the record are that the W.P Nos.3646 of 2006, W.P. No. 697 of 2006 & W.P No. 832 of 2006 were decided through judgment dated 13.05.2009 passed by this Court The grievance put forth by the appellants and others in the above mentioned writ petitions was the non-payment of ration allowance at the rate of Rs.681/-, which was permissible to them in the general cadre before their transfer on deputation to the Elite Force, a Specialized Wing of the Department established to counter the terrorism. It was stated that they were allowed the ration allowance @ Rs.681/- P.M and same was not being paid due to misinterpretation of the Punjab Police Rules although under Rule XIX-A-9(V) they were entitled to the ration allowance, which is in addition to the ration allowance permissible to them being members of the Police Force. These writ petitions were accepted vide order dated 13.05.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber in the following terms: "For what has been discussed above, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the enhancement in salary including ration allowance and other facilities which are available to them under the newly inserted Chapter XIX-A of the Police Rules which shall be in addition to the allowances/privileges/facilities to which they were/are entitled as being members of Punjab Police and no allowance or privileges shall be withdrawn"
Both sets of the petitioners/appellants of the above mentioned ICAs moved criminal originals alleging therein that the order of the Court was not being implemented.. These petitions came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge in Chamber, who was pleased to dismiss the same by observing that the Province of Punjab was not impleaded as respondent so the judgment was not binding on it and as such the ration allowance could have not restored to the petitioners:
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners had impleaded all the Officers, who were responsible for disbursement of the allowance and as such the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber is against the law and not maintainable. It was further contended that while disposing of the criminal originals, the learned Single Judge in Chamber has in fact reviewed the order dated 13.05.2009, which could have not been done and as such the order is not sustainable.
4. In W.P No. 3646 of 2005, the appellants/petitioners had impleaded the District Police Officer, Multan, EDO (Finance), Multan and District Accounts Officer, Multan, whereas in W.P No. 697 of 2006 the appellants/petitioners had impleaded the Inspector General of Police, Accountant General, Govt of Punjab Lahore, Secretary Govt. of Punjab (Finance Department), DPO, Khanewal, EDO (Finance), Khanewal and District Accounts Officer, Khanewal as respondents. However, the Province of Punjab was not impleaded. Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that in a suit by or against the Provincial Government, the Province would be made party and by virtue of Section 80 the Secretary of the administrative department or the collector can accept the notice.
Article 174 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan clearly provides that the Federation may sue or be sued in the name of Pakistan and the Province may sue or be sued in the name of Province. No doubt the Province of Punjab could have been sued through the Secretary (Finance) or the District Collector but the petitioners/appellants had not sued the Province of Punjab and had only impleaded the Public Officers. From this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge in Chamber rightly held that the public officers on their own have not passed the order for disbursement of the allowance unless it was approved by the Government of Punjab. Even otherwise, the ration allowance was not withdrawn rather they were paid ration allowance at the enhanced rates admissible to the Elite Force personnel. Rule XIX-A(9)(V) only provides the enhanced rates of ration and it is nowhere mentioned that it would be in addition to the ration allowance being paid to officers posted in general cadre of the police department. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that now they are getting Rs. 1,000/- P.M as ration allowance against a sum of Rs.681/-, which was admissible to them as members of the general cadre of Police Department. This being so they cannot say that the allowance has been withdrawn rather it is being paid at the enhanced rates. In these circumstances, no contempt of Court or disregard of the orders passed by it appears to have been committed. Both the ICAs are without merits and the same are hereby dismissed.