Asim Akram, Member. Since all the titled appeals are almost identical in their characteristics i.e. having similar facts and involving common questions of law, we intend to dispose them off jointly through this single judgment, to be recorded in the instant Appeal No. 182(R)CS/2020.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal is that the appellant is employee of WAPDA Security Force deployed in Ghazi Barotha Colony. He was being paid conveyance allowance as per the WAPDA Policy which was issued vide Office Memorandum dated 20.07.2011. The conveyance allowance was discontinued w.e.f 23.08.2017. A departmental appeal/representation was filed by the appellant against the said order on 30.08.2017 which is attached at annexure A-1 on page 07 of the main appeal. The respondents vide Office Order dated 11.10.2018 allowed conveyance allowance to the appellants w.e.f 01.10.2018.
3. The appellants filed appeals Bearing No. 4292 to 4295(R)CS/ 2017 wherein they prayed that in their departmental appeals they have prayed for conveyance allowance since it was discontinued i.e. 23.08.2017 and the respondents while allowing the conveyance allowance excluding the period from 24.08.2017 till 30.09.2018. The said appeals were disposed of vide order dated 3.10.2019 with the observation that the grievance of the appellants have been redressed. The Tribunal observed "However, if the appellants still feel aggrieved, they may file afresh, if so desired".
In furtherance thereof, the appellant filed departmental appeal against order dated 11.10.2018 on 06.11.2019 which remained un-responded during the statutory period after which they filed the appeal at hand on 11.02.2020.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order inter-alia on the grounds that non-payment of conveyance allowance w.e.f 23.08.2017 to 01.10.2018 is illegal and unjustified.
He further states that the respondents after visualizing their mistake have passed the impugned order and restore the conveyance allowance w.e.f 01.10.2018 but excluded the intervening period is against the law. Hence, the appeal at hand be accepted and the respondents be directed to pay arrears of conveyance allowance for the period 23.08.2017 to 01.10.2018.
5. The respondents have vehemently opposed the appeals by filing their objections wherein it is stated that the conveyance allowance granted to the appellant was discontinued upon objection raised by the WAPDA Finance Division which observed that the office as well as the residence of the appellant was within same boundary wall. As per the policy rules the (Wapda employees residing and working within same boundary wall are not entitled to the conveyance allowance. The conveyance allowance was restored to the appellant after construction of a boundary wall which separated the residential area from the office area of the employee. During the intervening period, for which the relief is being claimed, there was no separating wall between the office area and the residential quarter of the appellant hence, for that period the appellant was not eligible for conveyance allowance as per Wapda's policy. There is no illegality committed by the respondents in passing the impugned order, therefore, the appeal of the appellant have not merits and are liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. We have also perused the record carefully.
7. The conveyance allowance admissible to WAPDA employees was granted by the authority as per Policy formulated. vide Office Memorandum dated 20.07.2011. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: "ii. All Wapda employees (excluding those who are allowed Transport Subsidy or availing Transport Facility) shall he allowed Conveyance Allowance at the prescribed rates irrespective of their place/station of duty. iii. The other conditions/parameters regulating the -Conveyance Allowance will remain intact."
8. The WAPDA through another Office Memorandum dated 27.08.2011 further clarified the eligibility of conveyance allowance to its employees, the relevant portion of the same is also reproduced hereunder: "b. ' It is intimated that the employees not residing within their work premises, shall be allowed conveyance allowance, irrespective of the distance between the office and the residence. The term "Work Premises" means such premises as are sued as office cum residence and also those where office and residence either adjoin each other or are within the precincts of the main office building.
The Conveyance Allowance would not be admissible in case where office and residential buildings are located within the same boundary wall even if the residential buildings are far away from the office building. Conveyance allowance is also in-admissible in cases where there may not be any proper boundary wall but the office and residences are located on a limited piece of land. "
The Office Memorandum dated 20.07.2011 referred to above provides the eligibility for grant of conveyance allowance to WAPD employees and exclude those who are allowed transport subsidy or availing transport facility. As per the Memorandum the conveyance allowance is subject to terms and conditions which have been prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 27.08.2011. As per the term and conditions, conveyance allowance is not admissible to the employees in case their office and residential building are located within the same boundary wall even if they are distant apart.
9. The payment of conveyance allowance to the appellant was discontinued upon objection raised by the Finance Department that the appellant was not eligible for the allowance as his office and residence was located within one boundary wall. It is an admitted fact that conveyance allowance was restored after construction of a boundary wall separating the residential colony rom office area of the appellants. This fact is supported by the map of WAPDA Power Channel Colony annexed by the appellants with their main appeal as Annex-D. Upon inquiry of the fact from the counsel of the appellant he agreed that a wall has been constructed and the conveyance allowance was restored to the appellant thereafter. The counsel for the appellant stressed that both the residence and the office building are situated within WAPDA Power Channel Colony and separating wall is no restriction to payment of the claimed allowance. We disagree with the arguments of the appellant side; separate residential and office area is a requirement as per O.M. dated 27.08.2011 which set terms and conditions for payment of conveyance allowance.
10. The grant of conveyance allowance is a policy matter which is subject to terms and conditions of the employer. As per 'policy framed by the respondents, referred above, the appellant was not allowed the conveyance allowance for the period when there was no boundary wall separating their residential area from the working area.
Subsequently, the same was restored after construction of the wall separating both the areas.
11. As per the precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as 2022 SCMR 201 amending the policy i.e. term and conditions of employment is beyond the scope of Tribunal unless it is vires to constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 1973. The appellant has failed to highlight any discrepancy in the terms and conditions of Wapda governing the payment of conveyance allowance to its employees and making them vires the Constitution.
12. In light of the discussion above we are of the view that the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 was issued in accordance with the policy of the respondents and does not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring its modification by this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal lack merits and are hereby dismissed.
13. This judgment shall apply mutatis mutandis to the rest of Appeals Bearing No. 183 to 222(R)CS/2020 as well as.
14. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed in accordance with rules.