Qazi Khalid Ali, Chairman.All the listed appeals are fixed for final hearing some of which bearing appeals No. 935, 936(R)CS/2019, 678, 679(P)CS/2019, 1078, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1337 to 1339, 1567, 1454, 1657 to 1657 to 1659 & 1902(R)CS/2019, 575, 49, 01, 986(R)CS/2020, 75 to 82(P)CS/2021, 674, 675, 633 to 636(R)CS/2021, 340 to 391(P)CS/2021, 1376, 1377 and 1463(R)CS/2021 are at pre-admission stage, therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for final disposal.
2. Since in all titled appeals, the appellants have claimed similar relief, therefore, through this single judgment, we are inclined to dispose them and Appeal No. 728(R)CS/2018 field by Mukhtar Ali Malik is taken as lead appeal wherein the following prayer has been made by him: "It is, respectfully prayed that appeal may kindly be accepted and impugned final order dated 12.03.2018 may graciously be set aside and act of respondents for non-payment of Group Insurance amount to the appellant at the time of retirement be declared as illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, violation of fundamental rights of the appellant.
It is further prayed that respondents be directed to pay/return the amount deposited by appellant on account of Group Insurance with the department of Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance. The appellant had paid Benevolent Fund & Group Insurance in terms of Finance Ministry's Instructions issued vide letter No. F.6-11/69-Bill, dated 12.04.1969 Any other relief which this Honorable Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be awarded".
3. Learned counsel for the appellant while giving a brief background of the case has contended that the respondents deducted amount of Group Insurance from monthly salary of the appellant since the date of his appointment, but on retirement they have denied to refund the said amount to him. The Provincial Government of Baluchistan has promulgated the Baluchistan Provincial Employees Group Insurance Act, which provides that all Government employees are being paid Group Insurance amount for which they have contributed from their salaries regularly till retirement. The Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through judgment dated 03.11.2016 passed in W.P.No. 1355-P/2013 titled Fida Muhammad Durrani vs. Government of KPK through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others, held the employees of Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa entitled to the Group Insurance which judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 15.02.2018 passed in C.P.No. 11-P of 2017. It is contended that Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 (Act No. II of 1969) was promulgated to establish a Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance for the common benefit of the employees of the Federal Government and certain Autonomous Bodies to provide their Group Insurance. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant has referred Rule-6 & Rule-6A of the Rules framed vide SR0.2(KE)/77 which read as follows: "6. Contribution to and Benefits from Benevolent Fund: (1) Every employee shall pay a monthly subscription to the Benevolent Fund, in terms of Section 12(c), at the rates specified in column-.3 of the Second Schedule.
(2) The monthly benevolent grant under Section 13(3) shall be paid in accordance with the scale prescribed in Column (4) of the Second Schedule.
6A. Subscription to an benefits from Group Insurance Fund:- ( 1) Every employee shall make a monthly payment to the Group Insurance Fund at the rate specified in Column (3) of the Third Schedule.
(2) A sum specified in Column (4) of the Third Schedule shall be paid to the family of an employee who dies while in service, during the period from the first day of January, 1996 to the third first day of December, 2005"
4. It is contended that under Act, 1969 all civil servants and their families are entitled to the benefit admissible under the Central Employees Benevolent Fund and Group insurance, Act, 1969. There is no clause in the Act which can debar the employees who do not die during the service from benefits which are available to those, who die during service. The Ministry of Finance letter dated 12.04.1969 provides that in the case of Gazetted Officer, the deduction towards Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Insurance Fund shall be made by the officers themselves from their pay bills.
Deduction was made from tilt appellant's monthly pay bills but no benefit has been given to him on account of Group Insurance.
5. It is further contended that except the employees of the Federal Government, all other Provincial Governments employees have been extended the benefits of payment of the sum assured at the time of retirement and non-extending the said benefit or giving similar treatment to the Federal Govt. Employees by the respondents and amounts to patent discrimination. No financial implication out of the budget of the Federal Government is involved in the case in hand and also that deductions have already been made from the salaries of the employees which is lying with the department and is being invested in profitable schemes and that the profit/markup/interest, earned is not right of the department or Government. The judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar has attained finality as the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is binding on the Federal Government to implement it in letter and spirit. It is stated that the appellant preferred a departmental representation on 26.12.2016 but the same has been rejected vide final order dated 12.03.2018 and he prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
6. Two Appeals Bearing No, 1902(R)CS/2019 & 575(R)CS/2020, which were filed by the appellants in person, it has been stated in the memo of appeals that they all their lives have paid sum towards the premium for the compulsory insurance and upon retirement they did not receive back the amount insured. It is stated that under Section 19 of the Act, (II of 1969) only in case of death of employee, during course of employment, his family or nominee is to receive benefits, but no benefit accrues in case of retirement of the employee, which provision is in violation of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It has further been stated that the Provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhawa Baluchistan have amended the law and now retired employees received said benefits upon their retirement. They also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 1355-P/2013 [Fida Muhammad Durrani vs. Government of KPK through Chief Secretary, Peshawar & others ], which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.P.No. 11-P of 2017, C.R.P No. 36 of 2018 vide order dated 17.04.2018.
7. Other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti, Advocate and prayed for acceptance of the appeals.
8. The appeals have been contested by the respondents by filing their written para-wise comments and raised objections that the appeals are time barred.
9. Learned Assistant Attorney General as well as learned counsel for the respondents inter-alia contended that under Section 19 of the Act, 1969 (II of 1969) only in case of death of an employee during the course of service his family or nominee can receive benefit of the insurance and not on retirement.
It was further pointed out that Section 19 of the Act II of 1969 in its present form does not violate any provision of the Constitution and only in case the law is amended, the appellants can receive the referred benefit. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 17.06.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petition No. 4132 of 2016 titled as Muhammad Rehan Khan vs. Federal Government and 2 others.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent Pak. Railways have raised objection on the maintainability of the appeals, It is contended that vires of Section 19 of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 cannot be assailed under Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973.
The Pakistan Railways has it's own Group Insurance/Welfare Fund established under the Pakistan Railways Servants Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1969 promulgated in 1969. No recovery on account of Group insurance Contribution is' made either by 'the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance by Pakistan Railways Servants Welfare Fund. That as per Para-6(11) of "Instructions and Orders" of the Federal Benevolent Fund & Group insurance, it is clearly mentioned that no deduction on account of premia of Federal Employees Insurance Fund shall be made from the salaries of the non-Gazztted employees because insurance premium on their behalf shall be paid by the Government itself. Same practice is being followed in Pakistan Railways and insurance premia to the insurance firm on behalf of employees in BS-01 to BS-16 (Non-Gazettes) is paid by the Pakistan Railways through allocation in the budget. The learned counsel for respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
11. We have heard the appellants' counsels as well as learned Assistant Attorney General and others on behalf of the respondents and minutely perused the record as well as applicable law on the subject.
12. The precise case of the appellants, who are retired employees of Federal Government, WAPDA, Railways and other departments, is that during course of employment they paid the premium in respect of Group Insurance by way of contribution towards the compulsory insurance from their monthly salaries as provided under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969, (II of 1969) and the Rules framed there-under as Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Rules, 1972 as amended/revised in 2010. However, the sum assured was to be paid back only in case they died during the course of employment. According to them this premium was not paid voluntarily and the mechanism adopted by their employers with the Insurance Company was also without their involvement and consent; hence the condition that the amount of insurance can only be paid upon death during service, is not proper and legal. It is their case that the law as well as rules in this regard are confiscatory in nature and to the detriment of the appellants, as now the amount contributed by them is neither being paid to them; nor to the Government/employers rather the Insurance Company is benefiting from such amount of premium paid by the appellants. This according to them is their hard earned money. The appellants feel that they are entitled to receive back the sum paid as premium. We have observed that it is not an individual insurance but an insurance of group of persons. The insurance in question is only available to the group of persons who either approach the Insurance Company collectively as a Group for such Insurance; or in alternative, it is the employer who comes forward and arrange such an insurance as an incentive to its employees, by negotiating with the Insurance Company. In private Sector, some employers, being an incentive, takes responsibility of paying the premium. However, it depends upon the Company and its policy who is arranging such Group Insurance for its employee.: For the present purposes, the relationship of the appellants, Federal Government/Employers and the Insurance Company is governed by the Act II of 1969 and the Rules. The relevant provisions are contained in Chapter-IV of the Act-II of 1969, which read as follows: `15. Insurance of employees:--Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules, in the event of the death of an employee, occurring by whatsoever cause, during the continuance of his employment, the Board shall pay to the family of the deceased employee a sum [as may be prescribed] [15-A. Payment of additional lump sum grant on death during service in a security related incident:-In the event of death of an employee during his employment on or after the 9th day of February, 2015 occurring in a secretary related incident, the Board shall pay to the family of the deceased employee a special lump sum grant as may be prescribed; Provided that this grant shall be in addition to other benefits admissible to an employee under this Act.
Explanation: Secretary related incident for the purpose of admissibility of the additional lump sum grant means if death occurs due to a terrorist act or while combating or confronting the terrorist, irrespective of the fact that the victim was a member of a law enforcement agency or was a civil employee. Death of a member of any law enforcement agency due to a cause other than a terrorist act shall be classified as in-service death and shall not fall within the purview of this section.
16. Arrangements with Insurance Company etc.--The Board may from time to time arrange for the insurance of the life of the employees in sums [as may be prescribed] with such insurance company or other insurer and for such period as it deems fit, and where any such arrangement subsists, the liability to pay the said specified sums shall directly devolve upon the insurance company or other insurer.
17. Federal Employees Insurance Fund.--(1) There shall be established a fund to be called the Federal Employees Insurance Fund which shall vest in and be held and administered by the Board.
(2) All sums received from the employees as premia for the group insurance of the employees and any interest or profit accruing thereon shall be credited to the Insurance Fund.
(3) The moneys credited to the Insurance Fund shall be kept in such bank as may be prescribed.
(4) All [payments made under Section 15, the] expenses on any arrangement entered into by the [Board) with any insurance company or other insurer as provided for in Section 16 and all expenses on the administration of the Insurance Fund shall be defrayed from the Insurance Fund.
(5) Any sums remaining in the Insurance Fund after refrying the expenses referred to in sub- section (4) may be utilized for such purposes connected with the benefit of the l employees, including retired employees and their families as the Board may direct.
18. Paym ent of premia.--(1) Every employee shall be liable to pay to the Insurance Fund such sum of money as may be prescribed as premium for the insurance, of his life as provided for in this Chapter and the amount of such premium shall as far as possible be deducted at the source from his pay and credited or remitted to the Insurance Fund.
(2) Where the amount of premium cannot for any reason be deducted from the pay of the employee, the employee shall remit to the prescribed officer the sum of premium payable by hi, and any premia remaining unpaid due to inadvertence or negligence of the employee or otherwise shall be recoverable from him in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Default in the payment of permia either for the person that the pay of the employee was not drawn or due to his negligence or fault or for any other reason whatsoever shall not affect the right of his family to receive the sum assured in the event of the death of the employee, but the premium remaining unpaid at the time of his death may be recovered from the assured amount.
19. Paym ent of the sum assured.--(1) On the death of an employee, the sum assured shall be paid to such member or members of his family as he might have nominated in accordance with the rules in full or in the shares specified by him at the time of making the nomination.
(2) Where no valid nomination made by the employee subsists at the time of his death, the sum assured shall be paid to such member or members of his family subject to such conditions imposed with a view to ensuring that the sum is justify and equitably, utilized for the maintenance and benefit of all the members of the family as may be prescribed or may consistently with the rules, be determined by the Board or any officer authorized by the Board in that behalf.
13. Perusal of Section 18 of the Act, 1969 reflects that every employee shall be liable to pay the Insurance Fund such of money as may be prescribed as premium for the insurance of his life as provided for in this Chapter and the amount of such premium shall as for as possible be deducted at the source from his pay and credited or remitted to the Insurance Fund. It is compulsory in nature and if for some reason it has not been deducted; it has to be paid by the employee on his own and unpaid amount of premium could be recoverable from him in such a manner as may be prescribed. In sub-Section 3 of Section 18, it has clearly been mentioned that default in the payment of premium for some reason whatsoever shall not affect the right of his family to receive the sum assured in the extent of the death of the employee, but the premium remaining unpaid at the time of his death may be recovered from the assured amount. It may be noted that this provision was never challenged in any manner by the appellants during their service; nor even in the present set of appeals. Section 15 ibid provides in the event of death of an employee, occurring by whatsoever cause, during continuance of his employment, the Board shall pay to the family of the deceased employee a sum as may be prescribed. Section 16 ibid provides that the Board my from time to time arrange for the insurance of the life of the employees in sum as be prescribed with such Insurance Company or other insurer and for such period as it deems fit and where any such arrangement subsist, the liability to pay the said specified sum shall directly devolve upon the Insurance Company or other insurer. Section 17 ibid provides for the establishment of Insurance Fund and Section 19 provides for the payment of the sum assured on the death of an employee during service to his nominated member or members.
14. After going through the above provisions of the Act II of 1969 and Rules, it appears that insofar as the present status of the appellants is concerned, the law provides for compulsory deduction of premium against such Group Insurance and in fact is an implied consent and arrangement of the employees with their employer/ Government and others Organizations. When they accepted the employment and the terms and conditions of such employment, it is deemed to be implied consent. They start making contribution for payment of Group Insurance being civil servants pursuant to the Act II of 1969 and Rules made there-under. The appellants before us during the entire service period have never objected to such payment and contribution of premium. It was an incentive giving coverage and benefit to their families in case of sudden death during the employment period.
15. With regard to the claim of the appellant of Benevolent Fund is concerned, the relevant provisions 13 & 14 as contained in Chapter-IIII of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969, are as follows: "13. Benevolent grants to be paid from the Benevolent Fund:--(1) Where, prior to the forth day of September, 1988, an employee:
(a) was declared by the prescribed medical authority to have been completely incapacitated physically or mentally to discharge the duties of his employment and for that reason was retired or removed from service; or
(b) had died during the continuance of his employment or dies after retirement before attaining the age of sixty-five years, he or, in the event of his death, his family shall be entitled to receive benevolent grant from the Benevolent Fund according to the rates specified in column (3) of the First Schedule, for a period of fifteen years or upto the date on which the employee attains or might have attained if he were alive, the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier.
Provided that in the case of an employee who dies after having drawn benevolent grant under this sub-section, the said period of fifteen years shall be reckoned from the date from which he became eligible to the grant.
(2) Where, on or after the forth day of September, 1988, an employee is declared by the prescribed medical authority to have been completely incapacitated physically or mentally to discharge the duties of his employment and for that reason is retired or removed from service, he shall be entitled to receive for life such benevolent grant from the Benevolent Fund as specified in column
(4) of the Second Schedule; or where the employee dies during the continuance of his employment, or during retirement before attaining the age of seventy years, his spouse shall be entitled to receive for life such benevolent grant from the Benevolent Fund as specified in column r 1 of the Second Schedule: Provided that; if the deceased employee has no spouse or the spouse dies, other members of his family shall be entitled to receive benevolent grant from Benevolent Fund as prescribed for a period of fifteen years or upto the date the deceased employee would have attained the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier: Provided further that the said period of fifteen years shall be reckoned from the date from which the deceased employee or as the case may be, the spouse become eligible for such grant.
[(3) Where, on or after the first day of December, 2003, an employee is declared by the prescribed medical authority to have been completely incapacitated physically or mentally to discharge the duties of his employment and for that reason is retired or removed from service, he shall be entitled to receive for life such benevolent grant from the Benevolent Fund as (may be provided), or where the employee dies during the continuance of his employment, or during retirement, his spouse shall be entitled to receive for life such benevolent grant from the Benevolent Fund as (may be prescribed): Provided that if the deceased employee has no spouse or the spouse dies, other members of his family shall be entitled to receive benevolent grant from Benevolent Fund as prescribed for a period of fifteen years: Provided further that the said period of fifteen years shall be reckoned from the date for which the deceased employee or, as the case may be, the spouse became eligible for such grant.
(4) The beneficiaries whose grant period has not expired on 30th day of November, 2003 shall be entitled to an increase equal to twenty percent of the grant sanctioned under the rules with effect from the first day of December, 2003, for the remaining period of the grant.
[(5) Where, on or after the 9th day of February, 2015, an employee did or dies in a security related incident during his employment, his spouse shall be entitled to receive for life such additional monthly benevolent grant from the benevolent funds as may be prescribed.
Provided that:
(a) if the deceased employee has no spouse or the spouse dies, other members of his family shall be entitled to receive the benevolent grant for period of fifteen years;
(b) the period of fifteen years under clause (a) shall be reckoned from the date from which the heirs of deceased employee or, as the case may be, the spouse became eligible for such grant; and
(c) the grant under this sub section shall be in addition to other benefits admissible to an employee under this Act.
Explanation: Security related incident for the purpose of admissibility of the additional monthly benevolent grant means death that it occurs due to a terrorist act or while combating or confronting the terrorist, irrespective of the fact that the victim was a member of any law enforcement agency or a civilian employee. Death of a member of law enforcement agency doe to a cause, other than a terrorist act shall be classified as in service death and shall not fall within the purview of this sub-section.
14. Payment of benevolent grant:--(1) on the death of an employee, the amount of benevolent grant payable under Section 13, shall be paid to such member or members of his family as he might have nominated in accordance with the rules in full or in the share specified by him at the time of making of nomination.
(2) Where no valid nomination made by the employee subsists at the time of his death, the amount of benevolent grant shall be paid to such member or members of his family, subject to such conditions imposed with a view to ensuring that the amount is justly and equitably utilized for the maintenance and benefit of all the members of family as may be prescribed or may, consistently with the rules, be determined by the Board of an officer authorized by the board in that behalf'.
16. From the above it reveals that, an employee who declared by the prescribed medical authority to have been completely incapacitated physically or mentally to discharge the duties of his employment and for that reason is retired or removed from service, he shall be entitled to receive for life such benevolent grant from the Benevolent Fund as (may be provided), or where the employee dies during the continuance of his employment, or during retirement, his spouse shall be entitled to receive for life such benevolent grant from the Benevolent Fund as (may be prescribed), hence the claim of the appellant is not covered under the rules ibid.
17. Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in the case of Muhammad Rehan Khan (supra), relied upon by the learned Assistant Attorney General and Ms. Huma Noreen Hassan, Advocate for the Pak. Railways, is concerned, the same is applicable on all fours to the case of appellants but does not support their cause. The paras 8, 9 & 11 of the judgment are reproduced here under: "8. The basic character given in the preamble of the Act of 1969 is to provide monthly Benevolent Grant ranging from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 10,100/- in case of death during service or after retirement and invalidation during service or after retirement and invalidation during service and Sum Assured/Lump Sum Grant ranging from Rs. 350,000/- to Rs. 1,000,000/- and Rs. 150,000/- to Rs.
390,0001- respectively in case of death/ invalidation during service of an employee. Every Federal civil servant is bound to be a member of the funds as per his terms and conditions of service under Civil Servants Act, 1973 (the "Act of 1973"). However, in addition to these core functions, the Federal Employees Benevolent and Group Insurance Fund is also paying seven additional benefits under the provisions of the Act of 1969 and the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Rules, 1972 (the "Rules").
9. Section 21 of the Act of 1973 provides that every employee shall be entitled for Benevolent and Group Insurance Funds. The Act of 1969 provides for a monthly benevolent grant to the family of a deceased employee who dies during service or after retirement in pursuance of Section 13(3) of the Act of 1969 which reads as under: "13(3). Where, on or after the first day of December, 2003, an employee is declared by the prescribed medical authority to have been completely incapacitated physically or mentally to discharge the duties of his employment and for that reason is retired or removed from service, he shall be entitled to receive for life such benevolent grant from the Benevolent Fund as may be prescribed' or where the employee dies during the continuance of his employment, or during retirement before attaining the age of seventy years, his spouse shall be entitled to receive for life such benevolent grant from the Benevolent Funds as may be prescribed"
11. The preamble to the Act of 1969 and the provisions thereof make it abundantly clear that no provision exists for payment of the sum assured in case of retirement of a civil servant/Government employees. The petitioners claim discrimination and extortion and in this behalf reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court passed in case titled Fida Muhammad Durrani and others v. the Government of KPK through Chief Secretary.
Peshawar and others (W.P.No. 1355-P of 2013). The bare perusal of the above judgment shows that the matter was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Hon'le Peshawar High Court on the basis that the Government of KPK amended the law and enacted the Khyber Pahhtunkhwa Civil Servants Retirement Benefits and Death Compensation Act, 2014 (the "Act of 2014) alongwith the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Retirement Benefits and Death Compensation (Amendment)
Act, 2016 which provides for payment of the benefits in case of retirement of the civil servant under certain conditions. The judgment handed down by the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Government of KPK through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Fida Muhammad Durrani and others (C.P.No. 11-P of 2017). As noted above the sole basis for passing of the judgment by the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court was the amendment made in the law ".
18. Under Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen and in particular no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person could be taken except in accordance with law. It is well settled by now that Courts could not and should not create any right, liability, obligation that was not founded in law. Reliance is placed on PLD 1973 Supreme Court 49 titled the State vs. Zia-ur-Rehman and others and PLD 2021 Supreme Court 1 titled Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others vs. the President of Pakistan and others. What is the is the law applicable in these appeals is contained in the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 and Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Rules, 1972, amended/revived up to 2010. In our humble view the respondents have not committed any violation in compliance of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 and the rules framed there-under. Every action taken by the respondents is in consonance with the law and the Advocates for the appellants have not pointed out any specific provision of law which has I been violated by the respondents.
19. As to reliance of judgment of the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No. 1355-P/2013 dated 03.11.2016 (Fida Muhammad Durrani vs. Govt. of KPK) is concerned, it would suffice to observe that the law viz KPK Civil Servants Retirement Benefits and Death Compensation Act, 2014 as amended in 2016, in consideration had been amended by KPK Government through Act No. XXVIII of 2014 and the amended law very clearly provided that the amount in question shall be paid to the retiring employee in accordance with the formula pursuant to the amendment carried out in 2014; hence the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to present appellants' case as the provisions of both the laws are not pari materia.
20. So far as the objection of the respondents is concerned that the appeal is barred by time, the appellant has filed an application for Condonation of delay wherein the grounds have been taken that the matter relates to denial of financial benefits, loss is recurring and cause of action is continuing. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has no force in view of a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1439 tilted Abdul Hameed and others vs. Water & Power Development Authority through Chairman, Lahore and others wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to lay down the following dictum: "19. The Appellants had admittedly retired between 2009 to 2018. Since they claim that the Allowance ought to have been granted to them w.e.f. 20.02.2009, the cause of action (if any) accrued on or about 20.02.2009. Reckoned from the said date, the Service Appeals of the Appellants/petitioners were barred by time when confronted with this finding, the learned ASC for the Appellants stated that the Appellants were involved in litigation throughout. Further, this being a financial claim, the impediment of limitation cannot be allowed to come in their way. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the Appellants were bona fide pursuing their remedies before different fora. In addition, this was not their stance before the Tribunal. As far as the claim of the Appellants/Petitioners being financial in nature and beyond the pail of the law of limitation is concerned, this principle applies only where the claim is found to be valid and entitlement of the litigant has been established in judicial proceedings before a Court of law of competent jurisdiction. Only in such circumstances, Courts have in appropriate cases, condoned delay. In the present cases, we have already held that the Appellants/Petitioners were not entitled to receive the Allowance w.e.f. 20.02.2009. Consequently, condonation of delay cannot be granted merely on the ground that a financial claim has been raised, irrespective of its merit legality and validity.
Both assertions have been found by us to be without force, and misconceived".
21. Hence the claim of the appellant is barred by time as the appellant during the entire service has never objected to such payment and contribution of premium. Even otherwise, no cogent and plausible explanation has been advanced in the application for condonation of delay, which is hereby rejected.
22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit as well as time barred, with no order as to costs.
23. This judgment will also apply mutatis mutandis to the listed appeals.
24. Parties be informed.