FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.--- Through this consolidated judgment, we intend to decide Intra Court Appeals Nos,415, 481 and 478 of 2014 which have been directed against a consolidated judgment passed in W.Ps.Nos,1991, 30394 and 23107 of 2012 by a learned Single Judge in Chambers, by virtue of which, the afore-noted writ petitions were dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that appellants are retired employees of respondent- bank. During the course of their employment vide Circular No,37/99 dated 06.06.1999, it was decided by the respondent-bank that Privilege Leave (PL) balance as on 31.12.1998 has been frozen for encashment at the time of retirement. Subsequent to this, another Circular No,57/99 dated 29.07.1999 was issued by way of which it was clarified that encashment of PL can only be granted to a maximum of 180 days at the time of retirement, subject to availability.
3. Through the afore-noted writ petitions a prayer was made that respondent-bank may be directed to pay/encash the unutilized frozen PL in the light of afore-noted circulars. Report and para-wise comments were submitted by the respondent-bank denying the claim of the appellants, whereupon, through the impugned judgment, writ petitions were dismissed, therefore, these appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that by virtue of Circular No,37/99 appellants were made to understand that balance of their PL has been frozen which can be encashed at the time of retirement however by promulgating Circular No,57/99 since a restriction has been imposed on encashment of PL (to the extent of 180 days), therefore, the said restriction is not sustainable. It has further been argued that appellants are entitled to receive the encashment of the total outstanding PL.
5. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent-bank submit that since the appellants, after their retirement have received the total retirement benefits inclusive of the encashment of 180 days PL as contemplated in Circular No,57/99, that too without any protest, therefor, they are estopped from raising this question of encashment at a belated stage. They further submit that under Rule 90 of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973 (Rules), all leaves outstanding to the credit of an employee shall lapse on the day he retires from service however an exception has been created in the rule ibid through Rule 94 of the Rules which contemplates that PL can only be accumulated up to 120 days.
6. In the above backdrop, they submit that initially when the PL of the employees was being accumulated and was crossing the upper limit as provided in Rule 94, through Circular No,37/99, the same were frozen, however, through the subsequent circular (Circular No,57/99) which although was in derogation of Rule 94, as the upper limit of PL for encashment was enhanced from 120 days to 180 days, however, instead of challenging these notifications, during the currency of their service, appellants received the encashment of 180 days, therefore, appellant at this juncture cannot agitate that they are entitled to encashment of remaining PL.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The all important question which require determination by this Court is that whether the appellants are entitled to receive the encashment of the outstanding PL. In order to analyze the proposition in hand, it would be imperative to reproduce the operative part of Circular No,37/99 dated 16.06.1999 which is as under:--- "Part-IV Leave /Leave Encashment 1. Leave a. Privileged Leave (PL)
(i) PL balance as on 31.12.1998 will be frozen for encashment at the time of retirement,
(ii) PL to be availed within a year on becoming due. The maximum relaxation of 90 days shall be allowed to avail the leave in the subsequent year."
Thereafter, another Circular No,57/99 dated 29.07.1999 was issued which for convenience is reproduced as under:- NATIONAL BANK Of PAKISTAN HEAD OFFICE KARACHI INSTRUCTION CIRCULAR NO.57/99 July 29, 1999 NEW PAY PACKAGE-OFFICERS/EXECUTIVES-LEAVE RULES.
As provided in the new pay package Privilege leave balance as on 31.12.1998 will be frozen.
In this connection, it is clarified that the frozen leave balance as on 31.12.1998 can be utilized as under:-
(i) It can be availed as L.P.R. Upto 365 days or in lieu thereof encashed up to a maximum of 180 days at the time of retirement subject to availability.
(ii) It can be availed with prior sanction in spells of not exceeding 300 days including Ex-Pakistan Leave.
A proper record of leave balance as on 31.12.1998 and subsequent availment of leave out of the said balance should be maintained. -Sd- (Fazlur Rahman)
Senior Vice-President Personal Management Wing-Sd- (G.A. ALLANA)
Executive Vice- President and Divisional Head Management Support Division
6. A accumulative reading of the above circulars would show that through the former circular PL balance was frozen as of 31.12.1998 for its encashment at the time of retirement and through the subsequent circular a limit to encashment was imposed i,e, that a maximum of 180 days of encashment of such leaves can be asked for at the time of retirement, subject to its availability.
7. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that by virtue of Circular No,57/99 since a limit qua encashment has been fixed which is not in accordance with law, therefore, the same is not sustainable, cannot be looked into in the present litigation for the simple reason that the afore- referred circulars were issued in the year 1999, when the appellants were in service and thereafter from time to time (2005 to 2011) appellants retired from their service but never bothered to assail the said circulars on the ground that a limit for encashment of PL could not be imposed by the respondent-bank. In the attending circumstances, since the said circulars were not challenged by the appellants within reasonable time, therefore, at this belated stage, especially so when they availed the benefit of such circulars (got encashment of 180 days) they cannot be allowed to re- agitate a past and closed transaction. Moreover, in the present litigation no challenge has been thrown to these circulars therefore even otherwise no relief can be granted to them, therefore, it has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge in Chambers that the writ petitions were hit by principle of laches.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while considering the question of laches in judgment reported as State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another v. Imtiaz All Khan and others (2012 SCMR 280), has held as follows:- "Laches is a doctrine where under a party which may have a right, which was otherwise enforceable loses such right to the extent of its enforcement if it is found by the Court of a law that its case is hit by the doctrine of laches/limitation. Right remains with the party but it cannot enforce it. The limitation is examined by the Limitation Act or by special laws which have inbuilt provisions for seeking relief against any grievance within the time specified under the law and if party aggrieved do not approach the appropriate forum within the stipulated period/time, the grievance though remains but it cannot be redressed because if on one hand there was a right with a party which he could have enforced against the other but because of principle of limitation/laches, same right then vests/accrues in favour of the opposite party."
9. This judgment has been further upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court Pakistan in judgment reported as Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Law, Islatnabad and others (PLD 2013 SC 413).
10. For a while if this is presumed that appellants had a case, the rules which are applicable to the service of the appellants clearly stipulate that once an employee retires from service, the outstanding leaves to his credit shall lapse on the day when he retires. An exception to the rule has been created by way of introducing Rule 94 whereby, accumulation of privilege leave can be allowed upto 120 days. As discussed above, this upper limit has been enhanced through Circular No,57/99 and the employees were allowed to seek encashment of 180 days which in the present case, the appellants admittedly did avail.
11. In the afore-noted circumstances, since the appellants have been given the benefit as contemplated in the circulars, therefore, they are not entitled to any other relief.
12. While discussing an identical proposition, in the case reported as Capt. (Retd.) Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh v. Federal Government of Pakistan (2013 PLC (C.S.) 380), the view taken by this Court has been endorsed.
13. For what has been discussed above, we are in agreement with the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge in Chambers and find no illegality or irregularity in the said judgment, therefore, these appeals being meritless are dismissed.