M UHAM M AD ASIF,J: Through this petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the contemnor/respondent for non-compliance of the Judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1608/2014.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the W.P. No. 1608/2014, before this Hon'ble Court was finally decided and disposed of, vide order dated 30.03.2023 as under:- "In view of the above to the extent of the petitioner's prayer with regard to the claim for increment on promotion and exclusion of A.R.A the instant petition as well as writ petition NO. 2657/2014, being without merit, are dismissed. Whereas to the extent of the decision of S.L.I.C management to withhold 20% increase in the petitioners revised basic pay w.e.f. 01.01.2012 the petitions are disposed of in terms that to the said extent, the petitioners representation would be deemed to be pending before S.L.I.C's which shall be decided strictly in accordance with law particularly addressing the issue of legal competence of the authority to deprive the petitioner from the said 20%increase in the pay."
Per learned counsel for the petitioner the respondents is not complying with the aforesaid order of this Court, despite lapse of considerable time, the contemnor/respondent did not bother to do the simple exercise to decide the matter as per directed by this Hon'ble Court, even otherwise contemnor being the employer of the corporation is also bound to decide the matters of its employees sympathetically instead of dragging the poor petitioner to the court; that the respondent is duty bound to implement the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in true letter and spirit as it is the mandate of the constitution under article 201 of the Constitution that every organ of the state is under bounden duty to comply with the order of this Hon'ble Court, but the act of the contemnor/respondent is willful defiance of the order of this Court; that the petitioner had already suffered a lot due to the act of the contemnor/respondent, which act constrained the petitioner to file the above mentioned writ petition and now the humble petitioner has been pushed to file this contempt petition; that it is the settled law that whoever defiance the order of this Hon'ble Court, will expose himself for the contempt of the Court proceedings. In the instant case prima facie its look that the contemnor/respondent has willfully defied the order of this Court, hence instant petition.
3. The State Life insurance Company ("S.L.I.Cs") has submitted his report in the instant matter wherein it has been mentioned that the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in W.P. No. 1608/2014 dated 30.03.2023, had been pleased to pass the following directions by merging the petition No. 2657/2014, operative para of the judgment is reproduced below:- "Whereas to the extent of the decision of State Life Insurance Company ("S.L.I.C's") management to withhold 20% increase in the petitioners revised basic pay w.e.f. 01.01.2012 the petitions are disposed of in terms that to the said extent the petitioners representation would be deemed to be pending before S.L.I.C's which shall be decided strictly in accordance with law particularly addressing the issue of legal competence of the authority to deprive the petitioner from the said 20%increase in the pay."
It has been submitted by the Competent Authority that in compliance of the Court Judgment, in terms of Regulations No. 05 of State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 in the matter of fixation and respondent No. 04 of the said petition(s) opportunity was provided to the petitioner and personally heard on 13.10.2023, petitioners preferred to attend the hearing through zoom from Islamabad. Mr. Dildar Khan, retired Assistant Manager was nominated and authorized by the petitioners to argue their case along with four other petitioners, but rejected the claims of the petitioners.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners filed a writ petition No. 1608 of 2014 before this Court, wherein they sought direction to their employer "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan" to allow them one promotion increment in terms of Regulation 19(1) of the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 and 20% increase in basic pay with effect from 01.01.2012 and re-fixation of their salaries from the date of their promotion by excluding adhoc relief allowance.
6. After hearing the parties this Court concluded the matter vide order dated 30.03.2023 with the following observations:- "In view of the above to the extent to the petitioners prayer with regard to claim for increment on promotion and exclusion of Adhoc Relief Allowance (A.R.A), the instant petition was well as writ petition No. 2657/2014, being without merit, are dismissed. Whereas to the extent of the decision of State Life Insurance Company (S.L.I.C) management to withhold 20% increase in the petitioners' revised basic pay with effect from 01.01.2012, the petitions are disposed of in terms that to said extent the petitioners' representations would be deemed to be pending before the S.L.I.C which shall be decided strictly in accordance with law particularly addressing the issue of the legal competence of the authority to deprive the petitioners from the said 20% increase in pay."
7. In compliance with the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court, Petitioner No. 1, along with the other Petitioners, was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 13.10.2023. During the said hearing, Petitioner No. 1, a retired Assistant Manager, was duly nominated and authorized by the remaining Petitioners to represent them and present arguments on their behalf, along with four other petitioners.
8. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the Petitioners and a thorough examination of the entire record, including the reply submitted by the Management, Respondent No. 1 finds that the petitioners' contention regarding the protection of their salaries inclusive of the adhoc relief is untenable. The record reflects that the petitioners were members of the unionized staff, and their salary revisions were governed under the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) executed between the Union and the Management. The said CBA became effective from 01.02.2011 for the period of 2011-2012 and was formally executed on 27.03.2012. It is further observed that the Petitioners were promoted with effect from 16.08.2011, and their initial salary fixation post-promotion was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the said CBA Agreement, under which a 45% increase in basic pay was granted after adjustment of 50% adhoc relief. Upon promotion, the salaries of the petitioners were protected excluding the adhoc relief, as such, relief was not applicable to the staff cadre. Subsequently, adhoc relief was extended to the Petitioners with effect from 16.08.2011, in line with the benefits granted to other officers. Accordingly, the revised pay scale reflected the Petitioners' designation as Assistant Manager. However, this adhoc relief was discontinued upon the finalization of the officers' pay package in the year 2013.
Therefore, relief against the 20% has already been availed through the CBA Agreement 2011-12, if allowed it would be a double benefit of overlapping period, hence, the presentations of the petitioners are rejected being devoid of merit.
9. After evaluating the case from every angle it is an admitted fact that the respondent in compliance of the Judgment of this Court afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners regarding 20% increase in the pay, however, after due consideration of the Petitioners' submissions and examination of the record, it concludes that their claim for salary protection inclusive of adhoc relief is without merit. Since the benefits claimed have already been availed under the CBA, granting further relief would amount to a double benefit for the same period. Accordingly, the Petitioners' representations were rejected.
10. In view of the foregoing circumstances, no prima facie case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out against Respondent. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed.