1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J.--The facts are that the petitioner was an employee of the Food Directorate, and he opted for service with the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan. This Corporation is established by the Federal Government, and is fully financed by the said Government. It seems that the petitioner had opted for retirement from Government service at the time of taking service with the respondent Corporation. An Office Order, dated 30-6-1976, has been produced, which stated that the Corporation had accepted the option of some Officers, including the petitioner, and such Officers stood retired from Government service with effect from 31-1-1976, and were employed as fully-fledged employees of the Corporation with effect from 1-4-1976 in the pay scale and on the terms and conditions applicable from time to time to directly recruited employees of the Corporation. Paragraph 3 of the same document, which is placed on record as Annexure 'A' again states that the pay of such officials was to be fixed in accordance with the clarification contained in a paragraph of 2(3) of the Circular issued by the Corporation on 31-7-1975. Paragraph 4 of the said document may be fully reproduced, as it relates to the case of the petitioner as an individual.
2. It reads as follows:- "4. Mr.G.A.Siddiqui Deputy Manager, also belonging to the former D.G.Food and transferred to RECP, has opted to retire from Government service and become full-fledged employee of RECP w.e.f, 18th May, 1976 (F.N.). The management has been pleased to accept his option and to retire him from Government service w.e.f, 17th May, 1976 (A.N.). He is employed as full-fledged employee of the RECP w.e.f, 18th May 1976 (F.N) in the pay scale and on the terms and conditions applicable from time to time to directly recruited employees of RECP. The pay of Mr.Siddiqui will be fixed w.e.f, 18th May, 1976 in accordance with the clarification contained in para. 2(3) of this Corporation's Circular No,RECP-2(14)/75-E.1, dated 31st July, 1975."
3. ' Reference may also be made to another circular issued by the respondent/Corporation on 31-7- 1975, which has been placed on record as Annexure 'B'. In paragraph 3 of the said circular, the question of pay and allowances admissible to officials of the Directorate-General of Food; who become employees of the respondent/Corporation is stated.
4. ' It is stated in his paragraph as follows:- "This will, however be subject to the Government rules/orders applicable for fixation of pay of the retired Government servants, re-employed by corporations and other autonomous bodies, set up or controlled by Government?
5. ' The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent/Corporation was deducting the pension, which was being obtained on account of his service in the Directorate-General of Food. It seems he made some representations, but the same have been declined.
6. ' The question for consideration is in regard to the status of the petitioner. Admittedly, he is an employee of the Corporation, but the learned Advocate states that, in the matter of his salary and pension, he has to be treated in the same manner as government servant, in view of the circular that is placed on the record as Annexure 'B' (quoted above).
7. ' The first point, that has engaged our attention, is the bar created to the entertainment of this petition. The petitioner is an employee of the Corporation and therefore section 5 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance No,XIII of 1978 shall apply. By virtue of section 5, the petitioner has a remedy before the Service Tribunal. The import and effect of this Ordinance was considered by a, Division Bench of this Court in the case of Farid Ahmed v. The Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. PLD 1983 Kar 576. One of us was a party to that judgment. In that judgment, it has been clearly held that Corporations employees for the purposes of relief, which could be obtained under the Service Tribunals Act, have the same rights and status as the persons in the Civil Service of Pakistan. The learned Advocate attempted an argument to show that the judgment of the Division Bench was wrong, but, to that extent, we have informed him that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and until the Supreme Court reverses the decision of the Division Bench, it is binding on this Bench, which is also equally composed.
8. ' Even on merits, we are not satisfied with the case of the petitioner. It is common knowledge that, in case of re-employment of a Government servant by the Government, he is never paid the full salary, but his pension is deducted from the salary. In fact, this concept is embodied in rule 521 of the Civil Service Regulations. This rule reads as follows:- "If the pension is drawn wholly or in part, such authority shall take the fact into account in fixing the pay to be allowed to him...."
9. The above rule clearly states that, in the matter of fixing the pay and allowances of the appointment in which the pensioner is employed, all the pension, full, or, in part that is drawn by the incumbent has to be taken into account in fixing the pay to be allowed B to such incumbent. It is the case of the petitioner, and indeed it is born out from Annexure 'B', that, in the matter of his salary, he was to be treated at par with government servants. That being the case, rule 521 would apply with equal force. In these circumstances it is needless to pursue the point any further, because the rules being applicable, the deduction of pension appears not only reasonable and just, but also in pursuance of the statutory rules.
10. ' We see no force in this petition, which we dismiss in limine.