' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, C.J.--- Through the instant constitutional petition under Article-199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has made the following prayer:--- "It is, respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and the petitioner be allowed 20% increase in pension w,e,f, 10-3-2000 with all consequential back-benefits,"
2. The petitioner, in the writ petition has alleged that he was appointed as clerk-cum-typist in Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Ltd. After nationalization of Life Insurance Business in Pakistan the said company was merged in the Corporation namely State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan w.e,f. 1-1-1973. The petitioner, during the course of career got repeated promotions and was finally promoted as Deputy Manager. The petitioner was retired on 9-3-2000, after serving about 37 years, on attaining the age of superannuation and has been receiving his pensionary benefits as Deputy Manager (Retd.). The respondent Corporation on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 23-7-1999 granted an increase in pension, to the ex-employees of the Corporation but the said increase was not granted to the petitioner, hence, the instant writ petition.
3. In response to the notice issued to the respondents, parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was retired on 9-3-2000 and the respondent Corporation on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 23-7-1999 had granted an increase in the pension of ex- employees of the corporation but the said increase was denied to the petitioner; that the petitioner is being subjected to a discriminatory treatment, which is violation of Article-25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that the respondents have exercised the jurisdiction against the norms of natural justice and fair play.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petition is not maintainable in its present form; that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from the Court; that the petitioner was retired on 9-3-2000, as such, he cannot be given the increase which is admissible for the employees who had retired on or before 23-7-1999; that the petitioner was not retired at that time and was subsequently retired from the respondent Corporation on 9-3-2000; that the writ is filed after the lapse of about eleven (11) years and is, therefore, hit by laches.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the documents appended with the instant writ petition.
7. I am not oblivious, that before proceeding with the matter, it is to be determined that whether this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter or not? The services of the employees of State Life Corporation are governed by "The State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973".
From the perusal of these regulations, it is crystal clear that these regulations were made with the previous approval of the Federal Government and were published in the official gazette vide S.R.O.
57(1)/73, as such, I have no hesitation to hold that the services of the employees of State Life Insurance Corporation are governed by statutory rules, hence, they can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article-199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for redressal of their grievances relating to their service matters.
8. Petitioner, on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 23-7-1999, has prayed that he be allowed 20% increase in pension w,e,f, 10-3-2000 with all consequential benefits, whereas, the respondents have taken the stance that, as the petitioner was retired on 9-3-2000, therefore, he cannot be granted the increase in pension, which is admissible for the employees who had retired on or before 23-7-1999. I have meticulously perused the copy of Office Memorandum dated 23-7-1999, issued by the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulation Wing), whereby, 25% increase was allowed for the pensioners, in BPS-I to 16, whereas, 20% increase was allowed to the pensioners, in BPS-17 and above. Paragraph-4 of the said Office Memorandum reads as under:--- "4. The increase in pension will also be admissible to those Government servants who would retire, between the period commencing from 1st July, 1999 and introductions of revised pay scales."
' From the bare reading of the above re-produced section of the Office Memorandum, it becomes clear that the increase in pension was admissible for those Government Servants who were retired between the period commencing from 1st July, 1999 and introductions of revised pay scales. The petitioner along with the petition has also annexed a photocopy of Office Memorandum dated 4th September, 2001, issued by the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulation Wing) with the following subject:--- REVISION OF BASIC PAY SCALES AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF CIVIL EMPLOYEES (BPS 1-22) OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (2001)
' Paragraph-2 of the said Office Memorandum reads as under:- "2. Basic Pay Scales.--- The existing basic pay scales and the revised basic pay scales are shown in Annexure-I to this O.M. The revised basic pay scales shall replace the existing Basic Pay Scales, 1994 and shall be effective from 1st December, 2001."
From the perusal of the above re-produced paragraph-2 of the Office Memorandum dated 4th September, 2001, it is quite apparent that the revised pay scales had become effective from 1st December, 2001. Now again, while adverting to the Office Memorandum dated 23rd July, 1999, according to Paragraph-4 of the said letter, "the increase in pension was admissible to those Government servants who had retired between the period commencing from 1st July, 1999 and introductions of revised pay scales", whereas, vide Office Memorandum dated 4th September, 2001, issued by the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulation Wing) revised Basic Pay Scales had become effective "from 1st December, 2001", whilst, the petitioner had retired on 9-3-2000. As such, I have reached to the conclusion that the petitioner who had retired on 9-3-2000 i,e, after the issuance of Office Memorandum dated 23rd July, 1999 and before the effective date of revised pay scales i,e, 1st December, 2001, is entitled for receiving 20% increase in pension allowed by the Federal Government vide Office Memorandum dated 23rd July, 1999.
9. It would not be out of place to mention here, that the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the increase in pension vide Office Memorandum dated 23rd July, 1999 was for the pensioners who had retired on or before the said date and the petitioner, who was in service at the time of issuance of the said Office Memorandum, cannot pray for the said increase in pension.
'
10. From Paragraph-4 of the Office Memorandum dated 23rd July, 1999, it is quite clear that the increase was admissible to those Government Servants who had to retire, between the period commencing from 1st July, 1999 and introductions of revised pay scales and it was not written as "that the increase was admissible "for the pensioners", rather the increase was declared to be admissible for the Government servants who though at that moment, were in service but had to retire between the period commencing from 1st July, 1999 and introductions of revised pay scales.
11. It is also pertinent to mention here, that the petitioner along with the writ petition has also annexed a photocopy of the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which was filed by one Ghulam Yaqoob Malik, wherein, the appellant had prayed for grant of 20% increase in pension. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 27-4-2004. The said judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad was assailed by the State Life Insurance Corporation through Civil Petition No,1833 of 2004, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, but the Judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
12. In view of what has been discussed above, I have no option but to allow the instant writ petition.
Resultantly the instant writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to grant 20% increase in pension, to the petitioner w,e,f, 10-3-2000 with all consequential benefits.