' AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- Through this petition, the Petitioners have prayed that the Respondents be directed to give effect to the recommendations of National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) and extend the benefits of judicial allowance, utility allowance and three times increase in their pay from the date of recommendations by NJPMC.
2. The case of the Petitioners is that they are employees of the Federal Government and performing their duties in Banking Courts, Drug Courts, Accountability Courts and they are entitled to the afore- mentioned allowances w.e.f.
01.03.2010 as has been done in the cases of the other judicial officers and staff of the district judiciary, members of staff of the Federal Courts, the Courts subordinate to the Hon'ble Sindh High Court and the Tribunals in the light of the judgment dated 31.10.2013 passed in W.P.No. 20968/2009 by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners while relying on the afore-mentioned judgment dated 31.10.2012, the judgment dated 21.03.2013 passed in W.P.No. 536/2013 by the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court, the order dated 19.03.2014 passed in W.P.No. 2147/2013 and the order dated 05.08.2013 passed in W.P. No. 9332/2013 argued that the petitioners of the said writ petitions have already been granted the relief prayed for in this petition. Therefore, the same cannot be withheld in the case of the present petitioners.
4. Learned DAG has raised two preliminary objections. His first objection is that the Petitioners should have filed a representation before the competent authority and it was for the competent authority to decide whether or not the Petitioners are entitled to the same relief on the analogy of the petitioners in W.P.No. 20968/2009. The second objection of the learned DAG is that this petition is not maintainable because there is no denial by the respondents of any relief to the Petitioners, hence the Petitioners have filed the instant petition pre-maturely before this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
6. The Petitioners seek the benefit of the judgment dated 31.10.2012 rendered in W.P. No. 20968/2009.
In support of their case, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced various orders to show that similar orders have been passed in the others cases as detailed in paragraph No. 3, where the petitioners are working in the same capacity seeking the same judicial allowances. With reference to the preliminary objections raised by the learned DAG, the record shows that the respondents are only granting judicial allowances in the cases wherein writ petitions have been filed before the Court. The Petitioners have placed various different orders of this Court wherein similarly placed employees have been granted judicial allowance. Relief has already been granted to the other similarly placed employees whereas the Petitioners have been waiting for the same relief and payment of the judicial allowances. However, the same has not been awarded to them. Under the circumstances, there is no justification to deny the Petitioners relief as prayed for in this petition.
The judgment dated 31.10.2012 is pending in the ICA. However, mere pendency does not place a bar on this Court to adjudicate upon this petition.
7. Therefore, relying upon the dicta laid down in the afore-mentioned judgments, this petition is accepted. The Petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for in terms of the judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed in W.P. No. 20968 of 2009 from the same date.