MUHAMMAD SHAN GUL, J:- This Review Application has been filed by the applicant against an order dated 07.9.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No.598/2015 whereby the said petition was dismissed as being not maintainable. The case was called out four times on the said date but no one appeared on behalf of the applicant and since it was an old matter (filed six years ago) it was taken up to be decided on its own merits.
2. The writ petition was filed to restrain the respondents from deducting from the applicant' s pay and salary an amount equivalent to the monthly social security allowance previously received by the applicant but which amount she was not entitled to receive according to the respondents.
3. It is the case of the applicant that she was initially appointed as a contractual employee whose services were regularized in 2010 vide Notification dated 01.2.2010. That on account of some confusion pertaining to her place of posting the demand for deducting the social security allowance was not in accordance with law .
4. Since allowances, emoluments, perks, privileges are all species of the wider genus of pay and salary and since pay and salary are terms and conditions of service [("Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others" (2015 SCMR 456)], the petition was dismissed as being not maintainable on the strength of "Abdul Aziz and others v. Secretary Finance and others" (2017 PLC (C.S) 304) because of the jurisdictional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution.
5. The applicant has now filed this Review Application which is arguably barred by time but which objection of the learned Asstt. Advocate General does not need to be taken up and decided because the applicant approached a Division Bench of this Court by means of filing an Intra-Court Appeal which was withdrawn by the applicant herself obviously because she was not able to convince the learned Division Bench about the merits of her claim.
However , apparently , the applicant withdrew the Intra-Court Appeal so as to first file a Review Application in the matter . Hence, this Review Application.
6. A perusal of the Application for Revie w reveals that but for the ground of having not been heard and but for pointing out that the absence of the counsel for the applicant was not intentional nothing new or convincing has been mentioned therein.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued the matter at length and, therefore, his objection about not having been heard in the matter has been addressed . He has been shown the judgment reported as "Abdul Aziz and others v. Secretary Finance and others" (2017 PLC (C.S) 304) in which it has been clearly mentioned that a civil servant cannot approach the High Court with respect to a grievance pertaining to the grant or denial of an allowance and which allowance eventually formed part of the pay and salary of a civil servant. That, likewise, the counsel has been shown a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakista n reported as "Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others" (2015 SCMR 456), in which it has been clearly held that pay and salary are definite terms of service and a civil servant cannot approach this Court with respect to any grievance thereto.
8. It has also been pointed out to the learned counsel for the applicant that doors have not been closed on him and that he is well within his right to agitate the matter before the Punjab Service Tribunal constituted in terms of Article 212 of the Constitution.
9. In terms of reported precedent cases, approach by a civil servant to this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in matters which are germane to his terms and conditions of service including grant, refusal, return or deduction of allowances has been looked down upon as being legal anathema. Not only this High Court but all other Provincial High Courts have also followed this trite position of law and, therefore, the applicant cannot make any headway by means of this Review Application.
10. After having been confronted with reported cases, the counsel for the applicant resorted to a lame alternate argument that the allowances which were sought to be recovered from her pertained to a period when she was in contractual service. I am afraid if this is the case even then the applicant cannot approach this Court because a contractual employee is barred from approaching this Court either for the enforcement of her contract of service or in seeking enforcement of provisions contained in a contract of service and this is indeed trite. Reliance is placed on "Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed" (2013 SCMR 1707 ), "Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others" (PLD 2011 SC 132), (2003 PLC (C.S) 719), "Aurangzeb v. Messrs Gool Bano Dr. Burjor Ankalseria and others" (2001 SCMR 909) and "Federation of Pakistan, Chamber of Commerce and Industry , Karachi v. Ali Ahmed Qureshi"
(2001 SCMR 1733 ). Therefore, the alternative argument also does not cut any ice!
11. A consideration of reported preceden t cases on the question whether grant, refusal, return or deduction of an allowance to or from a civil servant is a matter of terms and conditions of service so as to denude this Court of requisite jurisdiction is necessary .
12. In "Hafiz Muhammad Ilyas and 6 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 3 others" (2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 40), a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court has lucidly observed that, "emoluments including allowance form part of the pay of a civil servant (paragraph No.7) and since pay is indeed a matter of terms of service of a civil servant the jurisdiction of a High Court is barred in such matters."
13. In "Province of Punjab through Secretary , Education Department, Lahore and 2 others v. Mirza Ahmad Khan" (1994 SCMR 1263 ) it has been held that, "jurisdiction to entertain a claim for pay of a civil servant is a matter of terms and conditions of service and on account of the presence of Article 212 of the Constitution, jurisdiction of any other Court is excluded." Similar observations have been recorded in "Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore and others v . Muhammad Akhtar Sherani and others" ( PLD 2001 SC 1032 ).
14. That, likewise, in Abdul Aziz and others v. Secretary Finance and others" (2017 PLC (C.S) 304), it has unequivocally been held that, "the claim for grant of an allowance was a matter rooted in terms and conditions of service and, therefore, amenable only to the jurisdiction of an Administrative Tribun al constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution."
15. In "Pakistan Agricultural Research Council v. Dr. Mirza Barjees Baig and others" (2000 SCMR 176), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that, "a High Court could not interfere in the matter of pay and salary of a civil servant and the only forum available for agitating such a question was the Administrative Tribunal constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution."
16. In "Kanwar Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan and 5 others v. Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and 3 others" (2011 PLC (C.S.) 231), a learned Single Judge of this Court has categorically held that, "fixation of pay and grant (or otherwise) of allowances for a civil servant was indeed germane to his/her terms and conditions of service and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction contemplated by Article 199 of the Constitution."
17. Interestingly , the Author Judge of this judgment is the same who earlier opined differently in "Mirza Inayat Beg v. The W APDA through Chairman and 3 others" ( 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1237 ) and who revisited his earlier view .
18. Similarly , in "Hameed Hayat and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others" (1999 PLC (C.S.) 965), a Division Bench of Sindh High Court has held that, "payment of allowances was a matter connected with the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant for which the only forum available was that of the Administrative Tribunal constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution."
19. Likewise, in "Muhammad Nasir Rahman v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and 4 others"
(2006 PLC (C.S.) 115) withdrawal of allowance of a civil servant was clearly held to be a matter connecte d with the terms and conditions of a civil servant and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of a High Court.
20. In the same vein, a Division Bench of this Court in Intra-Court Appeal No.955/2009 (Principal Seat) "Tariq Mahmood v . Government of Punjab " has held on the same lines.
21. In this view of the matter , this Review Application is misconceived and does not call for any interference and is hence, dismissed .