SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.---Through this single order, I intend to decide this petition as well as Writ Petitions Nos,11690 of 2017, 10182 of 2017, 4755 of 2017, 7593 of 2017, 5399 of 2017, 6593 of 2017, 29975 of 2017, 34166 of 2017 and 22183 of 2017 having commonality of law and facts inasmuch as in all these petitions, the petitioners who retired from National Bank of Pakistan against the posts held by them at the relevant time in the years starting from 2002 to 2014, have prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent-Bank for grant of post-retirement benefits, including medical ceiling, in line with Circular No,19/95 dated 14.03.1995. In some of the petitions, the petitioners have also assailed vires of letter issued by the Bank authorities whereby the claim of the retirees for grant of post-retirement benefits as per Circular No,19/95 has been turned down.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in connected matters who is petitioner in person in instant petition submits that two retirees, namely Muhammad Umar Satti and Shah Zaman Khan approached the Federal Service Tribunal through an appeal for grant of post-retirement benefit in line with Circular No,19/95 which was decided in their favour by the said forum through order, dated 09.03.2004, against which the Bank filed Civil Petitions for leave to appeal which was dismissed by the Apex Court of the Country through judgment, dated 03.11.2004, hence the Petitioners are also entitled for grant of post-retirement benefits as per Circular No,19/95. Adds that it is case of sheer discrimination inasmuch as many retirees have been accommodated by granting benefit as per Circular No,19/95 whereas the petitioners have been discriminated and that this court vide order, dated 14.01.2015 passed in Writ Petition No,19995 of 2015, titled as Ch. Muhammad Qasim and others v. National Bank of Pakistan through its President, NBP Head Office and others has already held that the persons retired under Voluntary Handshake Scheme or on completion of qualifying service are entitled to post-retirement benefits as per Circular No,19/95.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank while opposing the submissions made by the petitioner submits that though the judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal remained intact upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, but the same is not applicable to the petitioners for the reason that the same was passed in favour of those who retired from service prior to issuance of Circular No,37/1999; that Circular No,19/1995 was purportedly issued pursuant to . the recommendations of the Banking Council but the said Council having been dissolved through an amendment introduced in the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 was in consequential; that when the Circular No,19/95 was replaced with Circular No,37 of 1999, the petitioners have no cheeks to claim post-retirement benefits on the basis of Circular which has already been substituted by a new one; that after dissolution of the Banking Council, all the affairs of the bank employees relating to their appointment, transfer and monetary benefits are being decided by the Board of Directors of the Bank thus the petitioners cannot claim anything beyond that decided by the Board; that as the petitioners in thesepetitionsretired after issuance of Circular No,37/1999, they were to be governed under the said Circular in respect of their post-retirement benefits and that these petitions suffer from laches as the petitioners retired from service much prior to filing of these petitions.
4. Mr. Umar Hayat Khawaja, Advocate while exercising his right of rebuttal, submits that a specific criteria has been given to withdraw earlier instructions/circulars which having not been fulfilled, Circular No,37/99 cannot be used to the disinterest of the petitioners. To fortify his contentions, learned counsel has produced Instructions Circular No,206 of 2018, dated 28.11.2018. Adds that as the terms and conditions of their services were to be governed under Circular No,19/95, Circular No,37/99 is not applicable to them and that the question regarding powers of the Board to determine the terms and conditions of the Bank employees has already been put to rest by the Apex Court of the Country in the case reported as Muhammad Tariq Badr and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2013 SCM R 314).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents annexed with this petition in addition to case law cited at the Bar.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners in these cases retired from the bank service in the years starting from 2002 to 2014 and their terms and conditions of service were to be governed under the Circular which was prevalent at the relevant time. It is also admitted position that Circular No, 37/99 was issued much prior to their retirement thus their post-retirement benefits were to be governed under said Circular.
7. A perusal of Circular No,37/99 dated 16.06.1999 shows that Part-V thereof deals with the retirement benefits which for convenience is reproduced herein below:- PART-V: RETIREMENT BENEFITS
1. Pension Monthly Gross Pension under the new retirement benefits will be calculated on the basis of Revised Basic Pay (x) Number of Years of Service (x) 1.10%. However, the amount of gross pension on the basis of existing Basic Pay and existing formula is protected and will not adversely affect the present amount of pension as on 31.12.1998 with this change in the formula. Other terms and conditions of pension scheme will continue to be the same.
The cases those who retired upto 31.12.1998 will not be reopened.
2. BENEVOLENT FUND GRANT (BFG) will be allowed as per existing rules.
3. LEAVE ENCASHMENT IN LIEU OF LPR 50% of the leave not exceeding 180 days (subject to availability of leave balance) can be encashed in lieu of LPR as per existing rules.
4. POST RETIREMENT BENEFIT The following facilities will be provided to the retiring employees:- a) House Rent Ceiling as per existing rules. b) Use of Car as per existing rules. c) Sale of Car in use as per existing rules.
Except for car, cash in lieu of above facilities will be paid in lump-sum at the option of the employees.
The above concession will also be available to the families of deceased executives.
5. IN SERVICE DEATH In case of death during service leave (subject to availability of leave balance) upto 180 days shall be encashed and paid to the family of the deceased employee within 15 days from the date of submitting the required documents. In case of any delay disciplinary action will be taken against the officials found responsible.
6. MEDICAL FACILITIES As per existing rules. (emphasis provided)
7. SALE OF BANK'S CAR TO THE RETIRING EXECUTIVES FAMILIES OF DECEASED EXECUTIVES As per existing rules.
According to the afore-quoted portion from the Circular No,37/1999, the medical facilities of the retirees were to be governed under the policy in vogue at the relevant time. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are not being given benefit of medical facilities as per Circular No,37/99 rather their claim is that irrespective of Circular No,37/99 they are entitled to medical facility as per Circular No,19/95.
8. Entire case of the petitioners hinges upon the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the same was filed by those who retired from Bank Service prior to the issuance of Circular No,37/99. As the petitioners in these petitions are retired after issuance of Circular No,37/99, their case is not at par with the appellants who filed appeal before Federal Service Tribunal. Moreover, in the Circular No,37/99 it was made clear that the benefits of the said circular were not available to the persons who severed their relation with the bank while adopting Golden Handshake Scheme.
9. Insofar as the order dated 14.01.2015 passed in Writ Petition No,19995 of 2011 is concerned, suffice it to note that the same also deals with the persons who either retired from Bank Service prior to issuance of Circular No,37/1999 or opted for retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme, thus their case is also quite distinguished.
10. A perusal of these petitions shows that these petitions have been filed by the petitioners much after their retirement seemingly being swayed with the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal in the above referred case thus they are not entitled for any relief.
11. For what has been discussed above, these petitions having no force are dismissed with no orders as to costs.