FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Through instant writ petition, petitioner prays for direction to the respondents to implement order and judgment dated 03.04.2012 and 21.04.2016, whereby their Writ Petition No.3190/201 1 and Criminal Original No.161-W/2012 were disposed of.
2. Essential and relevant facts for adjudication of instant writ petition are that petitioners are ex-employees of the "Population Welfare Department? . Initially , they moved the learned Federal Service Tribunal through an appeal for provision of increments for the intervening period of termination to reinstatement. The said appeal along with connected appeals was disposed of vide judgment dated 12.04.2010. The respondents-department assailed the said decision before the Apex Court through 'C.P. No. 1192/2010' which was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2010. Being dissatisfied with non-compliance, petitioners then filed W.P. No.3190/201 1 followed by contempt petition (Criminal Original No.161-W/2012) which have been disposed of by way of orders, sought to be implemented.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners, retired civil servants, are waiting for their legitimate right since more than a decade; that multiple directions have since been issued without any result and that 48 similarly placed employees have been granted increments for the intervening period, therefore, petitioners deserve the same treatment.
4. On the other hand, learned AAG argue d that the ground of discrimination is not available to the petitioners while under the law the intervening period had already been treated as Extra-Ordinary Leave 'EOL ' without pay, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AAG and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. As a matter of fact, petitioners intend to have benefit under the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.140/1984 dated 29.02.1984 and CPLA No.712-L of 1997 dated 31.12.1998.
7. Through the first referred judgment various petitions pertaining to the Population Planning Division were disposed of. Para-8 of the judgment contains "offer and acceptance" of the employees and under clause-9, it was stipulated that "In case of persons who are finally appointed under this judgment, the period between the date of their termination from servic es to their reinstatement shall be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay and will be counted for pension, as admissible under the rules." The Hon'ble Apex Court had graciously inclined to dispose of the relevant petitions in terms of "offer and acceptance" as reveals through Para- 10.
8. Through the judgment dated 31.12.1998, CPLA No.712-L of 1997 was disposed of by observing that "although this case will not be cited as a precedent, but we are of the view that in the light of orders of this Court dated 29.02.1984 passed in CA No.140/1984, the respondents were bound to treat the period between the termination and reinstatement towards the pensionary benefits."
9. It is clear from the decisions ibid that the Hon'ble Apex Court initially inclined to dispose of the relevant petitions in terms of "offer and acceptance" that includes reinstatement without pay and through subsequent decision, intervening period had to be counted for the purpose of pension. There was no mention of payment of salary , increment or any benefit alongside the EOL except counting of the service for the purpose of pension.
10. Adverting to the judgment dated 12.04.2010 passed by the learned FST, claimed to have been passed in favour of the petitioners, it is noticed that in its paragraph 2, it was observed that "The Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided civil petition No.140 of 1984 and CPLA 712-L of 1997 by which the intervening period between the date of termination from service and reinstated into service i.e. from 08.09.1981 to the date of reinstatement was treated as ELO (without pay)." However , at the same time it was observed that the respondents shall look into the matter and ensure implementation of the judgme nt of the Hon'ble Apex Court in letter and spirit. It was observed under para-3 that in violation of that judgment the respondent could not give pay for the intervening period to any employee. For the purpose four months? time was afforded and in case of failure, it was directed that the appellant shall also be considered for the same relief. The direction, explicitly noted the departure from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, supra and the respondents were directed to implement the judgment in letter and spirit. There was no such direction that in case the respondents failed to comply with the direction, petitioners will be entitled to the same relief as there was a direction for their consideration and not the provision of any benefit.
11. The ground of discrimination, being pressed is also not available to the petitioners for reasons enumerated above. It was also due to the fact that the Finance Division vide summary dated 17.05.2010 opined that the petitioners are Federal Government Servants, subject to the rule making/control of the Federal Government under which the EOL cannot be counted for grant of increments.
12. What remains is the provision of benefit under the gracious direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court qua counting of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, Notification in this respect had already been issued way back on 02.02.2001 whereby pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, supra the intervening period had been treated as EOL without pay with clear specification that the EOL would be treated as qualifying service for pension as special case.
13. In line with above discussion, it is held that the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court supra approved "offer and acceptance? of the terms and conditions of service of employees that includes reinstatement without pay by treating it as EOL which was recommended to be counted for the purpose of pension and was so counted, have been complied with in letter and spirit. Therefore, the ground of discrimination, is misconceived as there was no direction qua pay/increments for the period of EOL. While the petitioners being the subject of Federal Government, as opined by the Finance Division are not entitled to provision of any increment or pay for the period of EOL.
14. Consequently , instant writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed .