SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---The appellants who are retired civil servants have impugned the order of the Service Tribunal dated 26.8.2016 declining the reckoning of increment by way financial relief of Rs, 300/- per month in the monthly salary for computing, pensionary emoluments from the date of retirement for want of impugned order as required by section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. Briefly, the Prime Minister's Secretariat on 11.3.1997 issued an U.O. No,16(P)PMDIR/931/97 in compliance of Prime Minister's address to the Nation on 23.2.1997 regarding financial relief of Rs,300/- per month to the low paid employees. The appellants were allowed such relief till the date of their retirement but such benefit was not included in their last pay for commuting pension and other post-retirement benefits on the ground that it was an ad hoc relief. It appears that the appellants, in the year 2016, filed departmental appeals and after getting no response approached the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, through the impugned order, dismissed their appeals by holding that "there is a yawning gap of over eighteen years since the appellant retired w,e,f, Feb, 1998. The appellant should have come within the statutory period as prescribed under Rule-4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, when came to know that Rs,300/ - per month announced by the Prime Minister had not been computed in the pensionary benefits" and that "it is admitted position that in the lis at hand there is no impugned order; hence, appeal filed by the appellant is hit by section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. When there is no impugned order, there should be no representation or appeal, hence, as a corollary no appellate order":-
3. Leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 27.1.2017 which reads as under:- "that the non or deficient grant of pension is a recurring cause of action and thus to hold that the petitioners have been sleeping over their rights since long; besides that they have failed to avail any departmental remedy such as that of appeal or representation is misconceived because no departmental appeal to a retired employee for pensionary benefits is available under the law and thus a civil servant aggrieved of the short payment or non-payment of the pensionary benefits can directly approach the learned Service Tribunal for the claim of their pensionary benefits.
Leave is granted to consider the above."
4. Learned ASC for the appellants contended that this Court in the case of Managing Director, Pakistan Railways, Carriage Factory, Islamabad v. Muhammad Asghar (2003 SCM R 1037) has held that the increase of Rs,300/- per month announced by the Prime Minister in his address to the nation granting financial relief to the low paid employees was neither ad hoc nor a temporary relief and was liable to be included for calculating pension and other post-retirement benefits and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the appellants' claim for .want of the impugned order.
Per counsel since the pensionary benefit being terms and conditions of the service and available under the law, therefore, the civil servants aggrieved of short payment or non-payment of pensionary benefits could directly approach the Service Tribunal to claim such benefits or their short fall and that there was no requirement of any impugned order.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents initially tried to argue that the relief so allowed in consequent to the Prime Minister's address was an ad hoc relief but in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Managing Director, Pakistan Railways, Carriage Factory, Islamabad (supra), did not press this argument, however, contended that the claim is hit by laches and, therefore, was rightly declined. It was lastly submitted that since such relief was discontinued w,e,f, 1.12.2001 vide Finance Division's O.M. No,F(1)(5)IMP 2001 dated 4.9.2001 on introducing revised pay scales, therefore, the employees who retired after 1.12.2001 were not entitled to such benefit. However, the entitlement of the appellants to the relief claimed was not disputed on factual plane.
6. In response, learned ASC for the appellants submitted that none of the appellant retired after 1.12.2001, therefore, such submission is not even relevant for the purposes of instant controversy.
7. We have heard the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record. The procedure to be followed by a civil servant in case where his conditions of service in respect of pay, allowances or pension are altered, interpreted to his disadvantage, reduced or withheld etc. is detailed in section 4(1)(a) to (c) of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, which reads as under:- "4.(1) A civil servant shall be entitled to appeal to the appellate authority from an order passed by an authority which - (a)alters to his disadvantage, his conditions of service, pay, allowances or pension; or (b)interprets to his disadvantage the provisions of any rules whereby his conditions of service, pay, allowances or pension are regulated; or (c)reduces or withholds the maximum pension, including an additional pension, admissible to him under the rules governing pensions; or
8. Perusal of the reproduced provision reflects that a civil servant has to file an appeal against an order may it be an order fixing his pension which alters, interprets to his disadvantage, reduces or withholds his pay, allowances or pension including any additional pension etc. The time frame for filing such appeal is provided in section 22 of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 which lays down that where a right to prefer an appeal or apply for a review in respect of any order relating to the terms and conditions is provided to a civil servant under any rules applicable to him such appeal or application shall, except as may be otherwise prescribed, be made within 30 days of the date of such order. It is further provided in subsection (2) of section 22 of the said Act that the remedy of filing representation within 30 days from the date of an order causing grievance to the civil servant is available in cases where under the relevant rules no provision for appeal or -review exist in respect of any order or class of orders.
9. Under the circumstances, there has to be an order altering, interpreting to his disadvantage, reducing or withholding maximum pension and allowances of a civil servant for preferring an appeal in terms of Rule 4 of the Civil. Servant (Appeal) Rules, 1977. In such grievances/proceedings no particular form of order is required and even pension fixation notices could be treated as an order for the purposes of availing the remedy of appeal under section 4 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977. Likewise Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 provides that any civil servant aggrieved by any final order whether original or appellate made by the departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may within 30 days of the communication of such order to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. The proviso to Section 4 further provides that if an appeal or representation or review preferred to the departmental authority is not decided within a period of 90 days, then such person may prefer an appeal before the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the obvious conclusion which one can draw is that an order which is the root of grievance coupled with an un-responded appeal or representation and/or the order of appellate authority deciding such appeal or representation would entitle a civil servant to approach the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance and in this particular case in respect of his pay allowances or pension.
10.Though it has been repeatedly held by this Court that pension is in fact a deferred part of the pay of an employee while he was putting his best efforts in rendering service to his employer during his hay days and this part is deferred to be paid to him periodically or otherwise to meet his old age needs as such pensionary benefits were neither a bounty nor a concession from any one and in the latter case are paid month wise and therefore, grievance in respect thereof provides a recurring cause, consequently, the limitation could not come in the way of such relief. Reference can readily be made to the case of Chief Executive Progressive Paper Ltd. /The Chairman National Press Trust, Islamabad v. Sh. Abdul Majeed (2005 PLC (C. S.) 1439). However, in our opinion, where such B pensionary benefit is altered or interpreted to the disadvantage of a civil servant or his pension is reduced or his maximum pension is withheld including an additional pension admissible to him under the rules then his grievance to that extent has to be regulated in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Civil Servant (Appeal) Rules, 1977.
11.However, the controversy herein need to be decided in the light of the background that one Muhammad Yousuf an employee of respondent had first voiced his grievance on non-inclusion of financial relief of Rs,300/- P.M. while reckoning his pensionary benefits and the Service Tribunal gave verdict in his favour on 28.12.1998 in Service Appeal No,295(R) of 1998. The respondent implemented the decision but again refused such benefit to their another employee namely, Muhammad Asghar compelling him to prefer the departmental appeal by asserting the pension fixation notices as order causing grievance. The representation remained un-responded forcing him to approach the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal while accepting his appeal directed the Pakistan Railways to include Rs,300/- in his monthly salary for computing pensionary benefits. The respondent instead of implementing the order of the Tribunal as in the case of Muhammad Yousaf approached this Court by impugning the order of the Tribunal and this Court vide its judgment referred to as Managing Director, Pakistan Railways, Carriage Factory, Islamabad (supra), held that such financial relief of Rs,300/- was reckonable towards the pensionary emoluments. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:- "Prime Minister's Secretariat U. O. No, 15(P) PMDIR/931/97, dated 11.3.1997 issued in response to Prim Minister's address to the Nation on 23.2.1997 regarding financial relief to the low paid employees on the face of it does not speak of ad hoc or temporary relief. On the contrary, it mentions that a financial relief of Rs,300/ per month was allowed to all the employees from BS-1 to BS-16 with effect from 1.3.1997. Thus it being permanent increase in the pay scale would be reckonable towards the pensionary emoluments".
12.The Court further in the concluding paragraph observed as follows:- "We are constrained to observe that the petitioner/department while refusing the relief to the respondent has not only discriminated but has shown double standard, as such, while maintaining the finding of the Tribunal, we uphold the reckoning of the increase of Rs,300/ - in the basic pay towards calculating the pensionary emoluments of the respondent. ".
13.The appellants are also the employees of the Pakistan Railways and once the controversy regarding the nature of the financial relief granted by the Prime Minister was determined and its inclusion for the purpose of reckoning pensionary emoluments was directed by this Court in the case of Managing Director, Pakistan Railways, Carriage Factory, Islamabad (supra) back in the year 2003, we wonder why the appellants were compelled to approach this Court. The respondents under the principle of good governance laid down by this Court in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Govt. of Pakistan and others (1995 SCMR 1185) were bound to include the amount of financial relief of Rs,300/- in the pensionary benefits of all their employees at least till the discontinuation of such relief on introducing revised pay scales. So far as the question of laches is concerned, in our opinion, such plea is not available to respondents on. two counts; firstly, that after determination of this controversy by this Court in above referred case where the respondents unsuccessfully had challenged the inclusion of such financial relief towards pensionary benefits, it was their bounden duty to include such benefit at least in the cases of employees who, like the present appellants, were entitled to such relief even if their argument of discontinuation of such relief on 1.12.2001 i,e, upon introduction of revised pay scales is accepted Secondly, neither the representation of the appellants was rejected by the respondents on the ground of being barred by time nor the Service Tribunal gave any specific finding or held the petition barred by time.
14.In the instant case the employees of the respondent/Pakistan Railways who were granted relief by this Court in the case of Managing Director, Pakistan Railways, Carriage Factory, Islamabad (supra) had preferred representation by treating the pension fixation notices as an order interpreting the financial relief of Rs,300/- P.M. to their disadvantage. The Tribunal accepted their appeal by redressing their grievances and directing the respondent/Pakistan Railways to include the financial relief of Rs,300/- P.M. allowed by the Prime Minister in reckoning their pensionary benefits which order was maintained by this Court in the judgment referred and reproduced above. Following their colleagues, the appellants herein instead of filing appeal in terms of Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, had moved the representation to-the appellate authority which could be treated as an un-responded appeal, had approached the Tribunal which, in our opinion, appears to be sufficient compliance of section 4(1)(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 specially when the claim of the appellants was backed by the judgment of this Court.
15.In the foregoing circumstances, all these appeals are allowed and the respondent/Pakistan Railways is directed to include the financial relief of Rs, 300/- P.M. for computing post retirement benefits. Parties to bear their own costs.