' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Messrs Muhammad Tahir Baloch, Abdul Latif Bhatti, Zahid Ali Naqvi, Sift Hussain Butt, Muhammad Hussain, Habib Ahmad, Zahoor Masih, Fida Hussain and S. M. H Tirmizie of S. G. A. & I. Department and Labour Department, have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Finance Department:, Civil Secretariat Lahore and the Governor of the Punjab Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that their appeal be accepted, order of respondent No, FD-PC-2-2/83, dated 1st March, 1984 and 1st April, 1984 be set aside and the amount so recovered be repaid to the appellants as well as other employees.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Rest and Recreation Allowance was discontinued w. e. f. 1st July, 1983 through the scheme of Basic Pay Scales. The appellants and other civil servants had their entitlement since 1st June, 1977. Respondent No, 1 issued Order No, FD-PC-2-2/83, dated 1st March, 1984 directing the Administrative Secretaries to recover the Rest and Recreation Allowance paid to the appellants and other employees after 1st July, 1983. It was further directed that the same be recovered in two equal instalments and then by order, dated 1st April, 1984 in four equal instalments. The appellants filed appeal before this Tribunal which was disposed of as premature as the appellant had failed to make representations to the next higher authority. However, the appellants filed representations before the Governor of Punjab through Secretary Finance Department, but despite a lapse of 90 days no reply has been received. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Rest and Recreation Allowance had been paid to the appellants during the month of July, 1983, by the order of competent authority under the provisions of order, dated 1st June, 1977, which was then in force. Learned counsel for the appellants has strongly objected the retiospectivity of the said order on the ground that the transaction had been past and closed, therefore, the same could not be recovered. For this he has relied on PLD 1977 SC MR 12, PLD 1961 SC 89 and PLD 1974 SC 180. He has also further cited examples of Federal Government which according to him had waived the recovery and has appended the order of the said Government as Annexure/H. He has also submitted that the Provincial Governments of Sind and Baluchistan have issued orders on the lines of Federal Government and have further directed that Rest and Recreation Allowance admissible before enforcement of Basic Pay Scales could not be drawn by the employees till 31st December, 1983.
Similarly the Government of N.-W. F. P. Has also waived the recovery of Rest and Recreation Allowance paid in July, 1983 to its employees.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted that Government of Punjab was not bound by the decision of Government of Pakistan nor by the other Provincial Governments and has to follow its own independent policy.
With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that the appellants had suffered no loss in this case as they had been fully compensated by receiving the arrears for the Basic Pay Scale w. e. f. 1st July, 1983. According to the learned District Attorney the Respondents have issued orders affecting recovery in order to remove discrepancy prevailing in the minds of Government employees.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the logic of retrospective should apply in both the situation. The law quoted by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be applicable to the present case of the appellants as the appellants themselves had taken the advantage of retrospectively in matters of drawl arrears of Basic Pay Scales, therefore, the application of settled law of giving retrospective effect to an order and considering the same as illegal- is not applicable in this situation. For example the employee of N.
P. S. 1 who was drawing pay at Rs, 260 on 30th June, 1983 drew Rest and Recreation Allowance as half of his pay under the former orders of Government i,e, Rs, 130 and in the Revised Pay Scheme he has been allowed Rs, 70 w. e. f. 1st July, 1983 and thus for the loss of Rs, 130 in the case of recovery of Rent and Recreation Allowance he has been paid an excess amount of Rs, 480 by virtue of enhancement in the Pay Scale No, I. In this manner it cannot be said that any injustice has been done in the case of the appellants. We are also of the considered opinion that the orders of Governments of Sind and Baluchistan have no application in this situation because R & R Allowance was being given by both the 'Governments according to the calendar year viz. 1st January to 31st December, of a calendar year and by allowing drawal of R & R Allowance till 31st December, 1983 by Gov ernments of Sind and Baluchistan, the cycle of R & R Allowance has been completed, which the employees of Punjab Government have already drawn uptil 30th June, 1983.
8. In the light of the above analysis of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.