' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the decision dated 8-11-1987 of the Governing Body of the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, and the order dated 14-11-1988 passed by the Commissioner, Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Head Office, Lahore), whereby the order granting advance increments to the petitioner was rescinded and the same were directed to be recovered from him.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was granted two advance increments on account of his good performance by order dated 27-5-1986 of the Commissioner of the Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution (Head Office, Lahore), (hereinafter called the Institution). This order was duly acted upon. In consequence, the petitioner has been drawing his increments and his pay was, accordingly, refaxed at Rs,3,615 in BPS-17 by order dated 17-8-1987 of the Commissioner of the Institution. Subsequently, a meeting of the Governing Body of the Institution was held on 8-11-1987 wherein under Item No, 2 of the Agenda of the meeting, it was decided to withdraw the advance increments granted to the staff and the officers of the Institution after 1986, but that granted prior to 1986 was to remain intact. The proceedings of the minutes dated 8-11-1987 were later amended by the Governing Body on 7-12-1987 to the effect that the figure "1986" should be read as "1985". The basis for withdrawal of the advance increments was that some protest was lodged against it.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407 contended that the advance increments having already been granted in favour of the petitioner, the same could not have been withdrawn or rescinded as it has taken legal effect and certain rights created in favour of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Commissioner of the Institution had no authority under any Rule or Regulation framed under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Act No, X of 1965 to grant advance increments to the petitioner and, therefore, the order dated 27-5-1986 of respondent No, 2 was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Administrative and other service matters) (Powers of the Commissioner and other Officers) Regulations, 1973. Under Regulation No, 3 read with item 7 of Appendix 'A' thereto, the Commissioner of the Institution is the appointing authority of his Private Secretary. In the instant case, it is not denied that the Commissioner is the appointing authority of the petitioner. As to the powers of the appointing authority, Regulation No, 4 provides that all appointing authorities shall have the power indicated in Part I of Appendix 'B' in respect of the Institution whom they are competent to appoint. Item No, 7 of Appendix `B' confers powers on the appointing Authority to allow period spent on extraordinary leave to count for increment. This has no relevance here. Item 3 of Part II of Appendix 'B' confers powers on the competent authority to withhold increment of a servant of the Institution or to order that he should not cross an efficiency bar. This Regulation again deals with disciplinary matters and not with the grant of advance increments.
5. Be that as it may, Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar has frankly conceded that where the other terms and conditions of the servants of the Institution are not specifically dealt with by the Service Regulations of the Institution, the Government Servants Rules and Instructions issued from time to time are ordinarily followed. Under Rule 4.10 of the Civil Servants of Punjab Rules, Volume I, Part I, the competent authority can grant an increment in advance to a Government servant. However, the policy of the Government as envisaged in GAD Department letter No, SO-IV(S&GAD)/2-VII-64, dated 9-2-1966, is to effect that until further orders the powers to grant premature increment to a Government servant should not be exercised by the competent authorities in view of the present financial exigency. However, so far as the Institution is concerned, a policy decision was taken as back as in August, 1975, by the then Commissioner to the following effect:- "Ever since taking over I have taken steps to recognize and reward merit. There have been cases where officers/officials received accelerated promotions, advance increments, honoraria etc. This practice shall be continued in future also. Merit wherever shall continue to be recognized."
6. When confronted with this situation, Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar submitted that the mere fact that the Commissioner had laid down some policy in 1975 would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that he was competent to do so. It was nly the Governing Body which is authorized to frame policy for the Institution or its servants. The fact, however, remains that the said policy decision still holds the field and its illegality was never questioned by the Governing Body. It is only in 1987 that the question was considered for the first time by the Governing Body wherein a decision was taken that advance increments granted to the servants of the Institution before 1986 should remain intact and those granted subsequently be withdrawn.
7. Mr. Muhammad Jamil Hasan, Director, Administration and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Administrative Officer of the Institution, also submitted before this Court that advance increments have been granted to the servants of the Institution from time to time since 1975 under the orders of the Commissioner. No exception was taken to the grant of such advance increments by the Governing Body till November, 1987, when the impugned decision was taken as a result of some anonymous complaint made to the Commissioner of the Institution that advance increments have been given to some and denied to others resulting in loss of funds to the Institution. But the grant of advance increments is to be decided by the competent authority in each case on merit. The mere fact that the advance increment has been given to one servant of the Institution is not a ground for automatically granting advance increments to other servants of the Institution. There was, therefore, hardly any justification for rescinding the grant of advance increments to the petitioner on the ground that some protests were lodged against it and that too through an anonymous complaint. Furthermore, the order of the Commissioner granting advance increments to the petitioner has been acted upon and taken legal effect and in pursuance thereof certain rights have been created in his favour, such an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of those rights. The contention that the order of the Commissioner suffered from infirmity of not having been made under any Rule or Regulation is devoid of any force, inasmuch as, it is not denied that according to the past practice consistently followed since 1975, the Commissioner has been granting advance increments to the servants of the Institution from time to time, subject to good performance and on merit, to which no objection was ever raised by the Governing Body in the past. The grant of advance increments to the petitioner was, therefore, in conformity with the past practice, to which no exception could be taken. Clearly, the impugned decision is discriminatory. Additionally, the impugned order of the Governing Body is violate of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to show cause before withdrawing or rescinding the order of grant or advance increments in his favor. It also suffers from vagueness, in that, the nature of protests lodged against the advance increments has not been stated with particularity either in the impugned orders or in the written statement filed by the respondents, which has adversely affected the right of the petitioner to make effective representation against it before the Institution.
8. In view of the above, the impugned decision dated 8-11-1987 of the Governing Body of the Institution in so far as it relates to withdrawal of advance increments to the servants and officers of the Institution and order dated 14-11-1988 of respondent No, 2 issued in pursuance of the said decision are declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the writ petition is accepted with costs.