MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant writ petition the petitioners, who are retired employees of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, seek a direction to the respondents to pay the commuted pension dues in lump sum to them without any further delay.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the prayer made in the written comments filed by respondent No.1, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation ("P.B.C.") and respondent No.2, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan. The said prayer is reproduced herein below:-1 "In view of the above, this honourable court is humbly requested to pass the directions to Respondent No.03 i.e. Ministry of Finance to grant the additional funds amount to Rs.4422.840 million (Rs.2629.007+Rs.1793.833) to Respondents No.01 & 02 enabling us to clear the pending liabilities as well as deficit of CFY-2022-23 of pension commutation of its retired employees as well as petitioners."
3. The said prayer shows that respondents No.1 and 2 had conceded to the relief sought by the petitioners in the instant petition but were unable to make payments to the petitioners on account of paucity of funds and non-release of an additional supplementary grant by the Ministry of Finance.
4. P.B.C. is an autonomous body established under the provisions of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973 ("the 1973 Act"). The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has administrative control over P.B.C. Section 13 of the 1973 Act provides that the sources of income to P.B.C. shall be (a) grants-in aid made by the Federal Government for approved project of P.B.C.;
(b) moneys paid by the Federal Government for the expenditure incurred by the Corporation on the External Services and other services performed by the Corporation at the instance and on behalf of that Government; (c) such annual subsidy as the Federal Government may grant; (d) licence fee as the Federal Government may fix in respect of licences issued under Section 4 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 to posses wireless telegraphy apparatus; (e) income derived from sale of programmes and broadcast time for advertisement; and (f) income from other sources.
5. As per the report submitted by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, the Government grant is the main source of funding for P.B.C. which was allocated a budget of Rs.4,628,057,000/- during the current fiscal year 2022-23. According to the budget estimates provided by P.B.C., it requires additional funds of Rs.44,422.4 million to meet all its expenditures for the finical year 2022-23. For the payment of pension commutation, additional funds amounting to Rs.2,419.397 million are required by P.B.C.
6. The position taken by the Finance Division is that the service of P.B.C.'s employees are regulated by their own rules and regulations and that the Federal Government's policy for pension commutation are applicable to civil / military pensioners of the Federal Government only. The Finance Division also asserts that the grant-in-aid given by the Federal Government to P.B.C. in terms of Section 13 of the 1973 Act is for capital and developmental expenditure and not for expenditure related to employees. It is also asserted that the pension regulations adopted by P.B.C. require that the pension scheme has to be self sustaining and in this regard P.B.C. should have created a pension fund.
7. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Deputy- Attorney General at length and perused the record with their able assistance.
8. The vital question that needs to be answered is whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus by directing the Finance Division to give a supplementary grant of Rs.2,419.397 million to P.B.C. to cater for pension commutation of its retired employees.
9. Cases relating to the grant-in-aid by the Finance Division to any other Division of the Government or to Autonomous / Statutory Bodies under the administrative control of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting are a matter of policy with which this Court cannot interfere. Reference in this regard may be made to the following case law:-
(i) In the case of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperative Department Peshawar Vs. Saeed-Ul-Hassan (2022 PLC (C.S.) 164), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "... executive policy making is not the domain of the High Court in the scheme of the Constitution and, is the prerogative of the executive to ascertain on the basis of its need, requirement, available resources and fiscal space, which posts it wishes to keep and which it wishes to abolish.
Separation of powers is a well-entrenched principle of jurisprudence which requires that the Court cannot step into the shoes of the Executive."
(ii) In the case of Petro Oil (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (2015 CLC 1030), it has been held that due deference has to be shown to the policies framed by the Government.
(iii). In the case of Syeda Shazia Irshad Bokhari Vs. Government of Punjab (PLD 2005 Lahore 428), it has been held that the Courts do not sit in judgment over a policy of the Government and in the case of Safdar Jamil Vs. Vice Chancellor (2011 CLC 116), it has been held that policy cannot be struck down in the writ jurisdiction.
(iv). In the case of Muhammad Hussain Vs. Muhammad Afsar (2001 YLR 2259), it has been held inter alia that the Courts of law should not sit upon economic and financial policies which are best left to the experts.
10. It is indeed the obligation of P.B.C. to pay pension to its retired employees as well as commuted pension if it is a part of the terms and conditions of their service but this Court cannot compel the Finance Division to give a grant to P.B.C. so as to enable it to fulfill its obligations to its retired employees. P.B.C. is also a recipient of an enormous grant from the government and it ought to prioritize the payment of pension to its retired employees out of the said grant but this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot issue such directions.
11. In view of the above, the instant petition is not maintainable which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.