MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.---Through instant petition, the petitioners have expressed their grievance with regard to non-payment of some annual increments as well as their pensionary benefits.
2. Facts of the case are as under: a) Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Lecturer in BPS-17 on 01-03-1974. He retired from service on 04.06.2006 after putting in about 28 years of service. His main grievance is that he was deprived of his annual increments due on 01-12-1988, 1989 and 1990. Thereafter , he was promoted to BPS-18 on 01-07-1991. When the scales were revised in the year 1991, his pay was re-fixed and annual increment was allowed to him for 1991. He reached the maximum of scale in BPS-18, therefore, he was awarded move over in BPS-19. Again he reached the maximum scale of BPS-19 on 01-12-1997 and his next increment was due on 01-12-1998 which was not given to him for years. On 01.12.1999 he was allowed move over to BPS-20 and, as stated above, he retired from Government service on 04-06-2006. Petitioner No.1 claims that he was not given three increments of BPS-17, one increment of BPS-18, and one increment of BPS-19 were not given to him and which has adversely affected his monthly salary and future pensionary benefits.
(b) Petitioner No.02 was also appointed as Lecturer in BPS-17 on 09-06-1973. His pay was re-fixed and annual increment were allowed to him for the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 and his next increments were due on 01-12- 1988, 01-12-1989 and 01-12-1990 which were not given to him. Thereafter he was promoted in BPS-18 on 01-07- 1991, when the scales were revised in the year 1991. Therefore his pay was re-fixed and annual increment was allowed to him for 1991. He reached to maximum scale of BPS-18, therefore he was awarded move over in BPS-
19. Again he reached to maximum scale of BPS-19 on 01.12.1997 and his next increment was due on 01.12.1996 which was not given to him. On 01-12-19 99 he was allowed move over to BPS-20 till he retired from Government service on 04-01-2002. He was not given increments for 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1996 till retired from service which means three increments of BPS-17, one increment of BPS-18, and one increment of BPS-19 were not given to him and this has adversely af fected his monthly salary and future pensionary benefits.
(c) Petitioner No.03 was appointed as Lecturer BPS-17 on 17-12-1976. Thereafter he was promoted in BPS-18 on 01-12-1989. When the scales were revised in the year 1991, his pay was re-fixed and annual increment was allowed to him for 1989-91. He reached the maximum of scale in BPS-18, therefore he was awarded move over in BPS-19. Again he reached the maximum scale of BPS-19 on 01-07-1994 and his next increment was due on 01- 12-1994 which was not given to him. Thus , three increments of BPS-19 were not given to him, which has adversely affected his monthly salary and future pensionary benefits.
(d) Petitioner No.04 was appointed as Lecturer in BPS-17 on 07-04-1973. His pay was re-fixed and annual increment allowed to him for 1988, 1989 and 1990 and his next increments were due on 01-12-1988 and 1989 which were not given to him. Thereafter he was promoted to BPS-18 on 01-07-1991, when the scales were revised in the year 1991. Therefore his pay was re-fixed and annual increment allowed to him for 1991. He reached the maximum scale of BPS-18, therefore, he was awarded move over in BPS-19. Again he reached the maximum scale of BPS-19 on 01-12-1997 and his next increment was due on 01-12-1996 which was not given to him. On 01- 12-1999 he was allowed move over to BPS-20 till he retired from Government service on 31-03-2002. He was not given increment for the years 1988, 1989 and 1996.Thus, three increments of BPS-17, one increment of BPS-18 and one increment of BPS-19 were not given to him and which has adversely affected his monthly salary and future pensionary benefits.
3. We have heard the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in person, while learned State Counsel also addressed the Court on various legal issues. Petitioner No. 3 has reportedly expired while petitioner No.4 is admitted in hospital.
4. The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that every civil servant is entitled to annual increment for every calendar year as a matter of right and if he reaches the maximum of his existing pay scale, he is to be granted move over to next higher scale so that he is not deprived of the benefit of annual increment. These accumulated annual increments become part of his monthly salary on the basis whereof, on attaining the age of superannuation, his pensionary benefits are calculated. The petitioners submit that since they were deprived of some annual increments, therefore, they were dealt with discriminately and, as such, they were suffering pecuniary losses as they were drawing less pay and pension then their contemporaries.
5. According to the petitioners, the respondents, while denying increments to the petitioners, always took shelter behind 3rd paragraph of notification dated 28-03-2001, in which it is provided as under: "3. The decision shall be effective from calendar 1998. No claim of pension/commutation period prior to 01-06-1998 will be entertained."
6. However , subsequently even this impediment in the way of the petitioners was removed when respondent No.2, vide letter dated 06-03-2008, informed all the heads of departments that the Government of Sindh has been pleased to withdraw/cancel para No. 03 of above said notification and as such cond ition in respect of bar placed on claims for period prior to 1998 was remov ed. However , even after removal of the above hindrance, in spite of best efforts of the petitioners, the above increments were not given to them on one pretext or the other .
7. The petitioners stated that they approached the District Accounts Officer for redressal, of their grievance, who advised them to contact the Secretary Finance Sindh. The petitioners submitted applications along with requisite documents to Secretary Finance. Department, Government of Sindh. The application of the petitioners was received but no action has been taken thereon till now .
8. The petitioners submitted that denial to grant increments to the petitioners by the respondents is in violation of the basic rights of the .petitioners as the annual increment is not a bounty but is right of the employee which, in any case, cannot be denied. Therefore, any deviation from such practice is illegal, in excess of authority , derogatory , discriminatory and ultra vires and, therefore, is unconstitutional. The petitioners are continuously suffering and also are suf fering every month when they are receiving less pensionary benefits than the required benefits.
9. In this regard reference was also made to a petition filed by another employee of Government of Sindh, namely , Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto (C.P. No.D-454/2010) , which was filed on almost identical facts and was allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 18/08/2010. This judgment was assailed by the Government of Sindh before Honourable Apex Court but the appeal of Government of Sindh was dismissed and the judgment of this Court was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16/07/2013. Copies of the Judgment of this Court as well as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are available on record. Refusal on the part of the respondents to grant same relief to other employees placed in same position resulted in filing of identical petitions being, C.P.
No.D-655 of 2014 and C.P.No.D-656 of 2014 by some of the retired employees before this Court which were also allowed vide common judgment dated 20-04-2017. However , still the petitioners were not granted same relief, hence they have approached this Court by filing instant petition with following prayers:.
(a) To declare that the petitioners are- entitled to the same treatment as awarded to others employees placed in same position vide judgments/ orders of this Honourable Court as well Honourable Apex Court of Pakistan; and refusal on the part of the respondents is discriminatory- and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
(b) To direct the respondents to grant and release annual increments to the petitio ners as specified in paras Nos.1 to 4 of this petition and onwards and to pay arrears as well to petitioners and accordingly to, re-fix monthly pensionary benefits of the petitioners after including the increments for the years they have not received till date they retired from service.
(c) To grant any other alternate relief which this Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
10. This petition was fixed before this Bench on 27.02.2019, when the petitioners were present in person while only State counsel, namely , Mr. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, was present. The following order was passed on the said date: "Petitioner present in person. His counsel Mr. Anwar Ali Janwri, has left the Court premises as informed by Mr. Imtiaz Ali, Advocate. Petitioner submits that identical petitions filed by petitioner Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto have already been allowed by Division bench of this Court on 18.08.2010 and the respondents went' in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court throug h Civil Appeal No.53-K of 2011 which by means of order dated 16.7.2013 was dismissed and the order passed by this Court was maintained. He also focused upon copy of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in. C.P. No. D-655 of 2014 which was allowed on 20.4.2017 in which one of us, namely , Muhammad Saleem Jessar , J, is the author of said judgment and submit that identical is their case.
However , the respondents in order to deprive them to their right have been avoiding to appear and file their comments only to linger on the matter . He further submits that one of the petitione rs had expired while petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 have been hospitalized. State counsel, confronted with the above, and after going through the record seeks time to call respondents. According ly, the respondents are directed to file their comments preferably within two weeks. In case of failure the respo ndents Nos.1 and 3 shall be in attenda nce before the Court. Office is directed to send copy of the order to respondents Nos. 1 and 3 by fax today . Adjourned to 20.3.2019."
11. The case was taken up on 20.3.201 9, when again only the petitioners and Mr. Qazi Muhammad Bux, State counsel, were present while respondents were not present in Court. On the said date, the following order was passed: "Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are present while petitioner No.3 has expired. The petitioner No.4 is stated to be hospitalized due to his ailment. On the last date of hearing specific directions were issued to respondents Nos.1 to 3 for filing their comments. Perusal of record shows copy of the order was also faxed. Today , neither respondents Nos.1 and 3 are in attendance nor comm ents have been filed on their behalf. Such conduct shows that they have no defence, as well as no objection for grant of the prayer , as prayed by the petitioners vis--vis instant petition.
Looking to their such attitude and apathy of the respondents Nos.1 and 3 we are of considered view that respondents Nos.1 and 3 have no respect for court orders nor have concern with the government work. Such conduct is noted with great concern and dismay ."
12. We have heard the petitioners in person as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record made available before us. Learned State counsel submits that instant petition may be decided in view of the earlier judgments passed by this Court as well as maintained by, apex. Court in Civil Appeal No. 53-K of 2011 vide order dated 16.7.2013.
13. As regards the death of petitioner No.3, since the matter of his increments will also affect his pension, in our view the right to sue survives. Therefore, in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Order XXII, C.P.C., the absence of his legal heirs on the record does not detain us from deciding the matter .
14. In this petition two very important issues are involved: (i) the right of the petitioners; and (ii) the lethargic attitude of the respondents towards the Court as well as the petitioners.
15. First, we will take the issue of the right of the petitioners in the instant petition. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they were entitled to some increments which were not granted to them and, as such, they were deprived of their legitimate right which affected their month salary and pensionary benefits. By filing present petition with' above quoted prayer , the petitioners have agitated their right as stated above. Since there is no opposition to the claim of the petitioners, and even the learned State counsel has also conceded that the petition may be decided in the light of the earlier decisions of this Court in similar petitions, therefore, we will examine the decisions in the earlier petitions on the same subject.
16. Constitution Petition No. D-655 of 2014 was filed by Rab Nawaz and two other petitioners. Facts of the case in the said petition, as given in para 2 of the judgment, which, was authored by one of us, namely , Muhammad Saleem Jessar , J, were that petitioner No 1, Rab Nawaz Tunio, was appointed as Lecturer in BPS-17 on 27.3.1974 and on reaching maximum of the pay scale B-17, he was given move over in BPS- 18 on 01.07.1983. Thereafter he reached the maximum of BPS-18 on 1.12.1987 and he was not given annual increments in the years 1988, 1989 and 1990. Subsequently , he was promoted to BPS-18 on 01.07.1991. Pay Scales were revised in the year 1991, therefore, his pay was re-fixed and annual increment in BPS-18 was given to him for 1991. He reached the maximum of BPS-18 and was awarded move over to BPS-19. He reached the maximum of BPS-19 on 01.12.1997 and his next increment, which was due on 01.12.1998 was not granted to him. To cut the long story short, the petitioner Rab Nawaz Tunio was not given annual increments in BPS-18 for three years i.e. 1988, 1989 and 1990 and one increment of BPS-19. He, along with some other petitioners, filed C.P. No. D-655 of 2014, which was allowed. It would be advantageous if relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: "22. It is astonishing that in identical case the respondents have benefitted Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto under the cover of notification dated 06.03.2008 and umbrella of Court orders passed by this Court as well as Apex Court.
For the petitioners, the learned Addl. A.G. has objected by referring to section 3 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1974, but the same plea or objection was not raised by them in Constitution Petition No.D-454/ 2010 . [which was filed by Dr . Muhammad Siddique Bhotto].
23. In our view the contention raised by learned Addl. A.G. has no force on the ground that whereas identical issue was decided by this Court and subsequently was recognized by the Apex Court there was no option for respondents but to accommodate the petitioners by resolving their grievance. Even otherwise, if the contention of the learned Addl. A.G. may be considered even then rule of propriety is existing, which favors the petitioners as in identical case their junior Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto was benefitted and therefore the petitioners are also entitled to have drawn their increments for the period 1997, 1998 and 1999 with respectively cut date and in this context reference can be had from the case of Government of Punjab and others v. Sameena Parveen and others (2009 SCMR 001) . The relevant observation is reproduced below: "It was held by this Court in the case of Hameed Akhtar Khan Niazi v. The Secretary , Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCMR 1185) that if a Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant who litigated, and there were other civil servants, who may not have taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the said decision be extended to other civil servants also, who may not be parties to that litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum. This view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi and others 2005 SCMR 49 and it was held that according to Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law ."
24. We have examined the Impugned Notification and have gone through the orders passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto (ibid) and find that the case of petitioners was identical to the case of Muhammad Siddique Bhutto and the petitioners would have been benefitted at the par by extending equal treatment to them in terms of the judgmen t of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Government of Punjab v. Samina Parveen and others (supra) . As far as contention of learned Additional A.G. with regard to the petitioners being civil servant, could have approached Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievance is concerned the same objection was never ever raised by them in case of Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has not considered such aspect of their case and therefore the appeal filed by the Government of Sindh was dismissed. Moreover , the conditions contained in para No.3 of the Notification dated 28.03.2001 was withdrawn by the Government through notification dated 06.03.2008, which was in terms of the existing policy of the Government. In our view, the case of petitioners is at par with that of Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto (ibid) and the respondents have denied their benefits which is clear discrimination and required interference by this Court.
25. Consequently , the petitions are hereby allowed as prayed. The respondents are directed to award the pensionary benefits as well as incremen ts in terms of the esteemed order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto and in terms of the notific ation dated 06.03.2008 and the existing policy of the Government within one month from today after receipt of this Order ."
17. The facts of the present case are identical to the case of petitioners in C.P. No. D-655 of 2014 as well as in the case of Dr.Muhammad Siddique Bhutto in C.P. No. D-454 of 2010 hence the petitioners were always entitled for the benefit of such decision (principle stood enunciated in said case); and any denial / refusal to extend benefit thereof to alike would fall within meaning of 'discrimination' hence instant petition, prima facie, is begging which the petitioners were / are entitled in view of principle, enunciated in above referred case of Dr. Muhammad Siddiq Bhutto. The judgment in the case of Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto was assailed by the Government of Sindh before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Apex. Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the Government Sindh and maintained the judgment passed in C.P. No. D-454 of 2010 by this Court. Thus, principle, so, enunciated in said case by this Court, earned stamp of honourable Apex Court thereby making the respondents to ensure compliance thereof within meaning of Articles 201 and 189 of the Constitution. In short, we would respectfully add that instant petition, stricto sensu, is not relating determination of any 'service benefit' but involves enforcement of guarantee, provided by Article 25 of the Constitution.
18. Apart from above, learned State counsel, while making his submissions on 20.3.2019, clearly and in unequivocal terms stated that instant petition may be decided on the basis of the earlier judgments passed by this Court on the same subject, which was also maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. Since all the issues which could be raised in the instant petition have already been decided by this Court, and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in earlier petitions referred to hereinabove, we have no hesitation in allowing this petition as prayed.
20. Now we will take up the next issue i.e. the callous attitude of the respondents in this petition. Before proceeding any further , we would like to refer to a holy commandment of the Almighty Allah contained in Sura An-Nisa, Verse 135, translation whereof reads as follows: "O People who Believe! Be firm in establishing justice , giving witness for Allah, even if it is harm ful to yourselves or parents or relatives; whether the one you testify against is wealthy or poor; for in any case Allah has the greater right over it; then do not follow your wishes for you may stray from the truth; and if you distort testimony or turn away , then Allah is well aware of your deeds"
(Chapter 4 (Sura An-Nisa -- V erse 135)
21. In this holy verse of the Quran, the first commandment from God Almighty is to be firm in establishing justice.
The address in this verse is to "0 People" and not to judges or qazis alone. Thus, while Judges are under oath to do justice according to law, every Muslim is directed by the God Almighty to be firm in establishing Justice. The 'justice', so, should not be limited to legal matters but every it shall always include to do a 'right' thing. We would add that such duty becomes double when one is blessed with some authority (designata) because consequences of his actions and omissions, while in authority , shall not be limited to himself but are sure to prejudice rights and obligations of others, if he fails to do 'justice' with his assigned duties. A reference to relative parts of the case of Pir Imran Sajid and others (2015 SCMR 1257 ), being suf ficient to make position clear , is made hereunder:-
11. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the whole edifice of government of the society has it genesis in the Constitution and laws aimed at to establi sh an order , inter alia, ensuring the provisions of socio-economic justice, so that the people may have guarantee and sense of being treated in accordance with law that they are not being deprived of their due rights. Provision of Article 4 embodies the concept of equality before law and equal protection of law and save citizens from arbitrary / discriminatory law and actions by the governmental authorities.
Article 5(2) commands that every body is bound to obey the command of the constitution'. Every public functionary is supposed to function in goods faith, honestly and within the precincts Of its power so that person concerned should be treated in accordance with law as guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution. It would include principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and procedural propriety . The action which is mala fide or colourable is not regarded as action in accordance with law. While discharging officials functions, efforts should be made to ensure that no one is prevented from earning his livelihood because of unfair and discriminatory act on their part.
12. It is now well laid down that the object of good governance cannot be achieved by exercising discretionary powers unreasonably or arbitrarily and without application of mind but objective can be achieved by following the rules of justness, fairness, and openness in consonance with the command of the Constit ution enshrined in different Articles including Articles 4 and 25. The obligation to act fairly on the part of the administrative authority has been evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of the justice. (underlining is for emphasis)
22. In the instant case the respondents have failed to comply with the above commandment in letter and spirit. On the contrary , they have tried to deprive the petitioners of their rightful benefits.
23. As per the facts of the case, as stated above, the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in the years 1973/1974/1976 etc. They retired from Government service in the years 2002/2003 . According to rough calculation, the Petitioners, who are still alive, are aged about 75 years and above. It is very painful to note that one of them has already expired. The petitioners expressed their grievance to the respondents with regard to non-payment of certain annual increments and prayed for grant of the same which were not given to them at the relevant time. The application of petitioner No.1, namely , Prof. Rasool Bux Solangi, is available at page 95 (Annexure "G") of the file which clearly depicts the genuine grievan ce of the said petitioner . This application was moved by the petitioner in May, 2017, and no order was passed there on by Secretary Finance till filing of the present petition on 17.10.2017.
The Finance Division was very quick and prompt in providing relief to Dr. Muhammad Siddique Bhutto but when the petitioners in this petition approached them, for reasons best known to the Secretary Finance, no action was taken by him for such a long time. Ultimately , the petitioners were forced to approach this Court by filing instant petition, wherein Notices were issued to the respondents and on 05.12.2017, learned State counsel sought time to file comments. However , the comments were not filed. On 27.3.2018, time was again sought by State counsel and a last chance was provided to respondents to file comments. Finally , on 10.4. 2018, comments on behalf of respondent No.2, i.e. Secretary Finance were filed. Instead of filing parawise comments, wherein each averment made in a paragraph of the memo of petition is to be answered, respondent No.2 preferred to file a single-page comments consisting of four paragraphs. It would be advantageous to reproduce following paras from the said comments, which read as under: "In this connection, it is submitted that prior to Revision of Basic Pay Scales, 2001 w.e.f. 01.12.2001, incentive of move-over to the next higher scale was allowed after reaching the maximum of respective Basic Pay Scale which was discontinued with effect from 01.12.2 001. And now, after discontinuation of move-over policy , the Government has allowed annual increments as Personal Pay on reaching the maximum of a scale of pay .
The petitioners' issues pertain to the period prior to the Revised Basic Pay Scale, 2001 when annual increments were not allowed but move-over to the next higher pay scale was allowed. It is not known as to whether petitioners approached the competent authority (appointing authority) at that time for move-over to the next higher scale on reaching of maximum of the respective pay scale or otherwise. However , appoin ting authority was competent to allow move-over .
In view of the above, the petitioners claim does not merit consideration, and therefore, the petition may kindly be dismissed."
24. These comments, to say the least, are far from correct rather are misguiding and misleading. A copy of order dated 18.8.2010, passed in C.P. No. D-454/2010 - filed by Muhammad Siddique Bhutto, is available at page 45 of the file. A perusal of said order reveals that petitioner Muhammad Siddique Bhutto expressed his grievance regarding his missing increments / special pay for the period from 01.06.1995 to 01.12.1997. This period is clearly prior to the Revised Basic Pay Scale, 2001. However , the prayer of the petitioner being genuine was frankly conceded by Mr. Azizul Haque Solangi, the then Assistant Advocate General Sindh and he was given such benefit for the years 1995 to 1997. However , when it comes to the case of the petitioners a discriminatory attitude is adopted by the respondent No.2, Secretary Finance and he completely ignores the law laid down by this Court and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and very conveniently it is prayed that instant petition may be dismissed.
The only ground on which prayer of the petitioners could be disallowed would be distinguishing facts of the two petitions i.e. if the facts of the case in instant petition were different from the facts of the case in the Muhammad Siddique Bhutto's case , then the Department / Respondents would have been justified to reject the claim of the petitioners. However , the facts are almos t identical as the claim of Mohammad Siddique Bhutto was for a period prior to 2001 and the claim of the petitioners was also for a period prior to 2001.
25. The other important aspect is that only justice should have been done to the petitioners. If they are entitled to move-over then they should have been given move-over and if they were entitled to increments then increments should have been given to them. However , two different yardsticks were used in the cases of two petitioners -- while the benefit of increments was given to Muhammad Siddique Bhutto the same was denied to the petitioners. If this is not injustice then we do not know what injustice is?. Every action shall always be subject to commandment of law and not to personality . The given detail rather compels us to hold that such attitude on part of the functionaries, prima facie , in negation to what their undeniable duty was as detailed in the case of Pir Imran Sajid supra as well in the case of Imtiaz Ahmed v . Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382 at Rel. P-400 as:- ....I think the proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights...."
Such conduct and attitude can never be welcomed particularly when question relates to a 'public / government servant' who, by its name, requires to help the 'public' in receiving what they are legally and lawfully entitled to.
Therefore, while concluding on this issue , we avoid action against concerned for keeping the petitioners away of their right while making the discussion as 'caution' for future, if public functionaries are found to be differentiating between person and personality .
26. The upshot of the above discussion is that instant petition is allowed as prayed. The respondents are directed to award the pensionary benefits as well as increments in terms of the order , passed by this Court and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Siddique Bhutto and in terms of the Notification dated 06.03.2008 and the policy of the Government applicable in the relevant period of time. The respondents are directed to carefully calculate and fix the salary / pension of the petitioners in acco rdance with the method adopted in the case of Muhammad Siddique Bhutto. This exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of this Judgment. We are making it very clear that any lethargy in this exercise will result in stern action against the delinquent officer(s), including initiation of contempt of Court proceedings. Compliance report shall be submitted by the respondents through Additional Registrar of this Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.