' Justice (R) Sayed Zahid Hussain, Chairman.--Through this appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 the appellant, a retired employee of Pakistan Railways, Carriage Factory, Islamabad prays for a direction to the respondents for allowing "10% increase in pension on the strength of the judgments of the Tribunal and the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in identical matters". Before filing the appeal, the appellant made a representation before the Respondent No, 1 for the redress of his grievance, but the same is said to have remained un-responded.
2. Para-wise comments have been filed by the respondents controverting the claim of the appellant and that there is no such policy regarding inclusion of 10% increase in pension.
3.The learned counsels for the parties have been heard.
4.In support of his assertion, the learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to the judgment dated 14.01.2004 in connected Appeals No, 6, 15 & 1052(R)CS/2002 wherein it was conceded by the department that some other appeals had also been decided by the Tribunal and the judgments had been upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was thus directed to "re-fix the salary of the appellants by adding Rs, 300/- in their pay and 10% increase in pension in accordance with respondent's Circular No, 32-E/11- XIV(APO-III) dated 25.03.1997. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that Muhammad Yasin, one of the appellants in the above mentioned judgment had to seek remedy before the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan due to non-implementation of the said judgment, whose petition was converted into appeal on 03.11.2011 (C.P.No, 1936 of 2010) and maintaining the judgment of the Tribunal dated 14.01.2004 it was held that the said appellant (Muhammad Yasin) shall be paid pension as directed by the Tribunal.
According to the learned counsel, the matter did not end there as even the order of the Honorable Supreme Court was not complied with by the respondents and Muhammad Yasin had to file a Criminal Original Petition No, 72/2012 (contempt of Court) upon which, the judgment was implemented as is evident from the order of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 06.11.2012 and the petition was dismissed as not pressed. Another judgment of the Tribunal dated 04.04.2015 passed in 22 appeals of identical nature, has been produced by the learned counsel wherein appeals were accepted with a direction to the respondents for inclusion of increase in the salary and pension. It is stated that though the respondent-Railway had not agitated the matter before the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Secretary Finance filed Civil Petitions No, 2884-2892 & 2942 of 2015 for leave, but the leave was refused by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Another judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan invoked by the learned counsel for the appellant is dated 13.10.2015 in CPs No, 2460, 2490 to 2510 of 2015 when again leave was refused. It is thus contended that the matter of increase in salary and pension having been dealt with by the Tribunal time and again and orders/judgments maintained by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the respondents are bound to extend similar treatment and benefit to the appellant.
5.The learned counsel for the respondents contends that increase of Rs, 300/- per month was payable to the persons in service whereas 10% increase was permissible to the pensioners as per policy of the Government, which aspect according to him, has not been considered in the above judgments.
6.The above resume of the background in which the appellant is resting his claim leaves no room for doubt whatsoever that the policy under which such increase was made was noted in the judgment dated 14.01.2004 of this Tribunal and in series of subsequent orders/judgments thereafter and upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. We are bereft of any authority to reopen or reconsider the matter over again as is being suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents. The judgments having attained finality have the binding effect and to be applied and implemented. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant upon Hamid Akhtar Niazi vs. The Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCM R 1185), is not in apt to seek benefit of the above mentioned judgments. In State Bank of Pakistan and others vs. Mst.
Mumtaz Sultana and others (2010 SCM R 421), the rule as to extending benefit of the judgment to non-parties was again considered and it was held that "undoubtedly and undisputedly the State Bank of Pakistan was party before this Court in all the above-referred judgments. The legal position stated and declared by this Court about the scheme was not for one segment of employees. It was for one and all, falling within the purview of the Scheme. The ambit of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 would get attracted with all force. There is no dearth of precedents where as a result of the legal position stated by the Court benefits accruing, were given even to those who were not party before this Court'. And that "it may be mentioned that the issue about the employees not being party to the litigation before this Court looses significance as the Bank itself was party, who was obliged to follow and implement the judgment in letter and spirit, to one and all. The effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be whittled down or washed away on such premises as are being canvassed by the Bank".
Thus the judgment of the High Court I whereby the benefit of the earlier judgments was given to non-parties, was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The appellant is thus entitled to be extended the same treatment and benefit.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted:
8. No order as to costs.