' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-On 15-7-1980 the Government of the Punjab issued a memo. To the following effect :- "I am directed to state that the question of grant of relief to all existing pensioners was .Under consideration of the Government for some time past. The Governor has been pleased to sanction with effect from 1st July, 1980, a special ad hoc increase as under to all existing civil pensioners of the Provincial Government :-- NPS. Rs, P. M.
1-10 40 11-1C 70 17-18 100 19-20 150 21-22 200 ' On the same day the Government of Punjab issued another memo. Which is to the following effect :- "I am directed to state that further liberalization of existing pensionary benefits has been under the condsideration of Government for some time past. It has now been decided that with effect from 1st July 1980, the amount of pension in excess of Rs, 2,000 (instead of Rs, 1,000) shall be reduced by 50%. Therefore the figure of Rs, 1,000 shall be substituted by the figure of Rs, 2,000 referred to in para. 2(a) of the F. D.'s Circular Letter No, FD-SR-' I11-4-1/77 dated 17th January, 1977, and in the Note below the Revised pension Table at Annexure I thereto.
' It has also been decided that where the enhancement of the cut-off point to Rs, 2,000 as mentioned in para. 1 above results in no increase or an increase of less than Rs, 40 in the pension, it shall be so determined that a minimum benefit of Rs, 40 P. M. Is ensured."
' The respondent was not being given the benefit in implementation of the last mentioned memo.
By the Accountant-General, Punjab when he filed Writ Petition No, 9076/80. The Provincial Government was also impleaded as a party to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that "the petitioner is entitled to get his pension revised in accordance with the letter dated 17th January, 1977, as amended by the circular letter dated 15th July, 1980. Further, the benefits so calculated shall be payable only from 1st July, 1980.
' The result is that "the refusal on the part of the respondent to act as said above, is without lawful authority. The respondent is, therefore, directed to act accordingly." This is vide judgment announced on 22-3-1981. The Accountant-General, Punjab and the Provincial Government filed an appeal on 17-4-1981. It was returned on 20-4-1981 by the office, inter alia, on the ground that the appeal was barred b 8 days. Separate application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay should be filed. The appeal was received by the appellants on 23-4-1981.
They refiled it on 9-5-1981.
2. The Federal Government filed C. M. 4/82 for being impleaded as a party in the appeal. It was allowed subject to all just exceptions vide order dated 2-10-1982. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Deputy Attorney General has appeared to state that he has the instructions to withdraw this application and that the name of the Federal Government be struck off from the array of the respondents. The application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn without any order as to costs.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the appellants has submitted that the two memos. Mentioned above and annexed with the appeal as Annexures 'A' & 'B' were issued on the instructions of the Federal Government and on the request of the Finance Department of the Provincial Government, the Finance Department of the Federal Government, has clarified through its memo. Dated 16-9-1980 (Annexure `E' with the appeal) that benefit of memo. Annexure 'B' shall enure to persons retiring on or after 1st July, 1980 though that of Annexure 'A' shall apply to pensioners retired prior to 1st July, 1980. Therefore, the action of the appellants was valid. Secondly, that the writ petition was not competent because the dispute related to terms and conditions of a civil servant and for that purpose the only remedy available under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 read with Article 212 of the Constitution was an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appeal was barred by time when it was filed on 19-4-1981 by 8 days' delay, and even care had not been taken to know whether the appeal was within limitation or not because no application for condonation of delay was filed. When the office pointed out on 20-4-1981 that the appeal was barred by 8 days and a separate application under section 5 of the Limitation Act should be filed, the appellants received back the appeal on 23-4-1981. An application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was drafted on 5-5-1981. The affidavit in support thereof was attested on 6-5-1981.
The appeal was still not filed until three days later i. e. On 9-5-1981. Not only the explanation regarding initial delay of 8 days is without substance but also there is no explanation whatsoever for the further delay of 3 days in filing the appeal after the affidavit in support of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act had been attested. He has placed reliance on Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and another v. Ghulam Ghaus etc. (1) and The Province of West Pakistan, Lahore v. Mian Noor Ahmad and others (2). He has, next, submitted that the contention raised that the writ {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1974 SCM R 38 (2) 1975 SCM R 91 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' petition was not competent, is belated. No such contention was raised before the learned Single Judge. In any case, the contention does not hold water because the dispute is not in relation to the terms and conditions of service between the civil servant and his employer but between a pensioner and the Accountant-General, Punjab who is not paying him the pension in accordant with the decision of the competent authority, the Provincial Government. Secondly the Accountant- General, Punjab who is refusing to make the payment in accordance with the Government's decisions, is not a departmental authority of the answering respondent. Consequently, section 4 of the Punjab Serve Tribunals Act, 1974 has no application.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record with their assistance. There is no doubt whatsoever that the appeal is barred by time. Not only it was filed after 8 days of the limitation without any application for condo nation of delay in the first instance but the explanation advanced is that it was "caused due to th A fact that the matter was examined by different departments." The Govern mint Departments should be more vigilant and efficient being staffed by educated paid officers than private citizens. The latter are not shown indulgence for such consultation. Why Government Departments? N premium can be put on inefficiency. All have to be treated alike by law. Moreover, the affidavit in support of the application for condo nation of delay was attested on 6-5-1981. The application with affidavit was not flu until three days later. No explanation is forthcoming for this delay. In case where an appeal had been returned on the ground that it was barred by time, application for condo nation of delay must have been filed diligent! And no further indolence shown. In view of the established law, man times declared by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan including in the tw judgments quoted by the learned counsel for the respondent, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by time.
6. The contention that the writ petition was not competent is an afterthought. It was not urged before the learned Single Judge. He had no opportunity to give his view on the point. Therefore, his order cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. Secondly, the contention is without merit. Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 bars an appeal on behalf of a civil servant against an order "made by a departmental authority". In the present case, departmental authority has passed no adverse order against the respondent-pensioner. What the latter is complaining is that what his employer, the Provincial Government, has decided to pay him, the Accountant-General is not doing. Therefore, the contention is repelled.
7. On merit the appeal has no force whatsoever. Vide memo. Dated 15-7-1980, the Provincial Government decided that "with effect from 1st July, 1980, the amount of pension in excess of Rs, 2,000 (instead of Rs, 1,000) shall be reduced by 50%. Therefore, the figure of Rs, 1,000 shall be substituted by the figure of Rs, 2,000 referred to in para. 2(a) of the F. D's. Circular letter No, FD-SR- III-4-1/77, dated 17th January, 1977". Now, from 1st of July 1980, by incorporation, the amended memo. Dated 17-1-1977 shall read as follows :- "Pension shall be calculated at the rate of 70 per cent of the average emoluments on completion of 30 years qualifying service. Where qualifying service is less than 30 years, but not less than 10 years, proportionate reduction in percentage shall be made. Any amount of pension in excess of Rs, 2,000 shall be reduced by 50 per cent " Therefore, from 1st of {{BLURE PAGE}} 'Irtp-.44W.
July, 1980, "pension" shall be calculated in the prescribed manner and any anWuqj iPq.g/ScFjk 4ii;j141144(4)fikl r541.6154 03759aliqr-Q1PliPui4zis.thf113( froclOthitiPx)ii944.wilFIP 7r,K041! 41144tRd PeBOPF OTAerg'-gAttifigli'
PfOiffie, (11:, MSkfihfil6PitiSI, 2 SY- MIA 513009r 4henlilitfiS56 (1.4M1 ffa3n*IRSit ]a459,05 ilFoliiiiP.)cRIltfAl9nt.44athP.49ntfli deR'v y ciPPW.Jr1 eqrA 4411Y/ib19 I' withoUt force., It was patent y or the pensioners . Lie contention that {{BLURE PAGE}} the decision of the Government has been differently construed by the Finance Department is neither here nor there. Decision of the Government cannot be varied or modified by interpretation by an officer in one of the departments D of the Government, even if it be Finance. If it were possible that the decision of the Government can be so construed by any official of any of the departments of the Government, contrary to the express and explicit language of the decision of the Government, the Government would obviously then not be relied upon by citizens and they will have to look to the officials who are designated as civil servants. Then servants will be masters and not the Government of the day. The whole thing will go tops turkey. Such a construction as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants will play havoc. It is without merit altogether.
8. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is dismissed as barred by time and on merits with costs.