1. ' MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.--- Through the instant petition, the petitioner No,1, who is a widow of a retired executive and the remaining petitioners, who are the retired executives of the Respondent Bank, have sought the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, prayed to this Hon'ble Court that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to implement the orders contained in :--- (a.) Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulation Wing) O.M. No,F-4(i) Reguiation-6/2010 dated 5th July, 2010 relating to increase in pension w,e,f, 1-7-2010.
(b) Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulation Wing) O.M. No,F-2(3) Regulation-6/2010 dated 5th July, 2010 relating to increase in family pension w,e,f, 1-7-2010.
(c) Also direct the respondents to implement content of para No,12 of Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Regulation Wing) O.M No F-I, (5) 3mp:/2011-419 dated 4th July, 2011 relating to increase in pension w,e,f, 1-7-2011 for petitioners and all other pensioners as like already implemented by respondents government orders relating to, increase in pension in the years 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005; 2004, 2003 and so on."
2. ' In their paradise comments the respondent Bank challenged the very maintainability of the petition on the ground that since the respondent Bank does not hgve 'any statufor y service rules/regulations, the petition in terms of Supreme 'Court judgments reported as ABU HURAYRAH SABIR v. ZARAI, TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS (2011 PLC (C.S.) 62) and as GHULAM SHABBIR v.
3. MUHAMMAD MUNIR ABBASI AND OTHERS (PLD 2010 SC 676), is not maintainable. Mr. Obaid-ur- Rehman Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is indeed true that the respondent Bank has no statutory service rules, however, 'since in terms of section 6 of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Re-organisation and Conversion), Ordinance, 2002, the employees of the erstwhile Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, the predecessor of the present bank, have been transferred to become the employees of the respondent Bank on the same terms and conditions and subject to the same rules and regulations, as were applicable to them before the transfer, and thus the terms and conditions and the rules and regulations governing the relationship of the former employees of the Agricultural Development Bank with the said Bank have been given statutory protection, as noted above. Such terms and conditions and rules and regulations are in fact at a higher pedestal than any service rules prescribed through subordinate legislation. The learned counsel in support of his contention refers to a judgment dated 11-8-2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masood Ahmed Bhutti, Syed Muhammad Dilavez and Nsiruddin Ghori being Civil Appeals Nos.239, 240 and 241 of 2011 respectively, authored by his Lordship Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khwaja, wherein dealing with a similar situation in respect of employees of PTCL, who stood transferred from Telephone and Telegraph Department, Government of Pakistan, it has been held as follows:--- "8. In 1991, the PTC Act was legislated by Parliament. It was by virtue of section 3 of the PTC Act that the Corporation was established. The PTC Act also contained provisions in respect of the employees of the T&T Department such as the present appellants. These employees were referred to as Departmental Employees as defined in section 2(e) of the PTC Act. Section 9 of the PTC Act expressly stipulated that "notwithstanding anything contained in any law, contract or agreement, or in the conditions of service, all departmental employees shall, on the establishment of the Corporation, stand transferred to, and become employees of the Corporation, on the same terms and conditions to which they were entitled immediately before such transfer." The Corporation, however, was authorized to take disciplinary action against such employees.
9. It is clear from this legal provision, that the rules relating to the arms and conditions of employment of the appellants were given statutory status. This status was on a higher plane than the status of regulations framed by way of subordinate legislation under section 20 of the PTC Act.
4. Consequently, whatever rules were in place governing the employment of the appellants in the T&T Department, were adopted by reference in the statute itself and were made applicable to and binding on the Corporation. There can be little doubt that by virtue of section 9 ibid such rules acquired statutory status having been sanctified by the PTC Act itself. We can, therefore, conclude without difficulty that the rules of employment which were applicable to the appellants during their service with the Corporation were statutory rules."
5. ' The principle enunciated in the above judgment. As is apparent from reading of the two paragraphs, is that where the terms and conditions of the employees of an organization, which employees stood transferred to a newly created entity, in case such terms and conditions are protected through legislation by saying that the employees transferred from the former entity/organization to the newly created entity/ organisation, shall continue on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to them in their previous organization the terms and conditions having thus been secured/protected by law, such terms and conditions attains the statute of statutory rules and, therefore, writ petition by such employees in relation to their service matter is maintainable. The above being the position the petition is held to be maintainable.
6. ' Coming to the merits of the case according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, who were employed as executives/officers of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan during the period commencing after November, 1977 and have retired at the age of superannuation were entitled to the pensionery benefits. As has been prescribed for the Federal Government employees from time to time. The learned counsel refer to a letter dated 30-11-1977 from Finance Division (Internal Finance Wing) Government of Pakistan, addressed to the Executive Director. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Annexure "A-1" to the petition), which reads as follows:--- "I am directed to say that with a view to providing better social security, it has been decided to introduce pensions and retirement benefits for the officers/executives of the bank including the State Bank of Pakistan and financial institutions as have been introduced by the Federal Government for Civil Servants. The pension scheme also includes the benefit of family pension to the officers/executive's wife and or to his children in the case of demise of the pensioner. The existing scheme of pension in the case of the National Bank of Pakistan, Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity shall be discontinued.
(2) The previous eontinuous service of officer/executive shall count as qualifying service for pension. The contribution made by the bank and financial institution towards the Contributory Provident Fund shall be withdrawn as that service shall now count for the purpose of pension. The contribution of the officers/executives plus interest thereon standing in their respective Provident Fund Account shall be transferred and credited to the Provident Fund Accounts to be established under the new Provident Fund Scheme.
A ---- DATE OF EFFECT
(3) These benefits shall be admissible with effect from 1st May, 1977 He then refers to an Admn.
7. Circular No,1/78 dated 1-1-1978 of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan being Annexure "A- 2" to the petition, which reads as follows:--- "In continuation of Admn. Circular No,39/77 dated 22-8-1977, it has been decided to introduce pensions and retirement benefits for the officers and executives of the Bank w,e,f, 1-5-1977. The pension scheme also includes the benefit of family pension to the officers/executive's wife and or to his children in the case of demise of the pensioner. The existing scheme of pension in the case of the National Bank of Pakistan. Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity shall be discontinued.
(2) The previous continuous service of officer/executive shall count as qualifying service for pension. The contribution made by the bank and financial institution towards the Contributory Provident Fund shall be withdrawn as that service shall now count for the purpose of pension. The contribution of the officers/executives plus interest thereon standing in their respective Provident Fund Account shall be transferred and credited to the Provident Fund Accounts to be established under the new Provident Fund Scheme, details of which will follow:--- A ---- DATE OF EFFECT
(3) These benefits shall be admissible with effect from 1st May, 1977 ."
8. ' The learned counsel submits that through the above circular, the policy as prescribed through aforenoted letter dated 30-11-1977, was adopted by the erstwhile Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan vide Admn. Circular dated 1-1-1978, (Annexure "A-2" to the petition). He further submits that subsequently in terms of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Re-organisation and Conversion) Ordinance, 2001, the bank was reorganised and named as 'Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited" and as evident from Circular dated 3-11-2002 (Annexure "B" to the petition), in pursuance of the aforesaid Ordinance and subsequent S.R.O. Issued by the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division dated 18-11-2002 (Vesting Order), all assets, contracts, liabilities proceedings and undertakings of Agricultural, Development Bank of Pakistan stood transferred to and vested in "Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited" w,e,f, 14-12-2002, and thus, it can be seen that the policy with regard to the retirement benefits, as adopted by the erstwhile Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and the Bank's liabilities created thereunder was/were assumed by the reorganized bank Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited. The learned counsel then refers to Annexure "C-1" to the petition. Which is an extract of the minutes of meeting of the Board of erstwhile Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan held on 26-4-2003, in terms whereof, aforenoted policy/regulations, as adopted by the erstwhile Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, had allowed increase w,e,f, 1-7-2000 instead of 1-7-1999. He submits that though in terms of the aforesaid resolution, the policy was to take effect from 1-7-2000 instead of 1-7-1999, however, after the creation' of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and as evident from Circular dated 3-6-2003 (Annexure "C-2" to the petition), the Board of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited in its 5th meeting held on 26-4-2003 has approved the change of effective date of increase in pension w,e,f, 1-7-1999 instead of 1-7-2000. The learned counsel submits that despite the above, the petitioners are not being extended the benefits of the said policy inasmuch as the increase in the various rates of pensionery benefits is not put into effect by the respondent bank, and thus the respondent bank is depriving the petitioners of such increase in rates.
9. ' On the other hand, Mr. Sananullah. Noor Ghouri, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that since after filing of the petition, certain benefits in terms of the aforesaid policy have been extended to the petitioners, the petition has become infructuous and for such benefits, which are being claimed by 'the petitioners and which still have not been extended to them the petitioners should have filed a separate petition. In our view, the argument is wholly untenable and misconceived. Through the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking enforcement of the aforenoted policy and since the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited in terms of the aforenoted Ordinance and the subsequent Board meeting have adopted the above policy, they are obliged to give all benefits to those of their officers/executives, who have retired during the relevant time and those amongst the petitioners, who have retired on. 1-7-1999 cannot be denied benefits of such policy.
10. We would, A therefore, allow the petition by directing the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited to fulfil their obligation in terms of the above policy and to pay to those amongst the petitioners, who have retired on or after 1-7-1999 the arrears, which may have become due to them in terms of the aforesaid policy and to continue to pay to the said petitioner their pension/family pension in consonance therewith.
11. ' The petition along with the pending application stands disposed of in the foregoing terms.