' The petition is addressed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 to set aside the order of respondent No,2 passed on May 30, 1988, whereby the bills for payment of hill allowance were turned down under the direction of respondent No,1.
2. The petitioners are civil servants serving in Education Department, posted at Boys and Girls High School, Mirpura, Tehsil Athmuqam. Their claim is that by virtue of their posting at a hill station (Mirpura), they are eligible to get hill allowance sanctioned by the Government vide notification of September 19, 1984. Respondent No,2, who refused to pass the bills for the allowance under the direction of respondent No, 1, had no jurisdiction to do so in derogation of the aforesaid Government notification. The claim of the petitioners is repudiated by the respondents.
3. It is admitted that the Government sanctioned hill allowance in favour of civil servants posted at various stations situate at the height of 4000' or above from the sea level, throughout Azad Jammu and Kashmir. This notification was passed on September 19, 1984. The sole criterion for determining eligibility for grant of hill allowance, thus, is the height of various stations being 4000' or above from sea level. The Government further, through a notification of January 15, 1985, authorised Deputy Commissioners of respective districts to submit report to the Finance Department of such villages (Mohras and Raqbas forming part of the village) situate at the aforesaid height from the sea level.
However, through another notification passed on July 25, 1985, a committee consisting of six members was constituted to determine the status of stations falling within the purview of notification relating to grant of hill allowance. By virtue of previous notification, Deputy Commissioner Muzaffarabad furnished a report to the Government on April 14, 1985 wherein it was explained that Mirpura was part of village Flakan. Flakan was included among the stations where the civil servants serving on duty were entitled to hill allowance. It is rightly pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that initially on the basis of a valid report, the civil servants posted at Mirpura were held eligible to get hill allowance. This is how the authorities made provision of amount of hill allowance in the budget relating to the aforesaid village. In support of this fact, copies of the budget, Annexures D-1 to D-8, are ample proof. It is also admitted that the petitioners were paid hill allowance right from the enforcement of the notification of September 19, 1984 till April, 1988, when their bills were turned down. This is just to point out that the authorities at all levels conceded that civil servants posted at Mirpura were entitled to the benefit of hill allowance.
4. It appears that respondent No,2, for the first time, turned down the bills in April, 1988 as by that time, the Committee in its report, excluded village Mirpura from the list of stations situate at a height of 4000' or above from the sea level. The committee has not given any exact height of Mirpura. Moreover, the report is silent as to how and on what basis the committee arrived at that conclusion. The notification refers to the term "stations situate at height of 4000' or above from the sea level". In order to arrive at a correct conclusion, this term is to be construed on the test of well- known rules of interpretation. The law of grant of hill allowance is a remedial statute. It is to be construed like all other statutes yet it deserves favour of the Court for its liberal construction. The basic object of such statutes is to advance the remedy intended by legislature in order to accomplish the real object and purpose. The object and purpose of grant of hill allowance is to provide financial aid to civil servants who were put to hard conditions like high prices, difficult journey, lack of facilities (education, health and residential accommodation etc.) and weather conditions. It is, therefore, quite reasonable to hold that at a hilly station, whether buildings are raised at the bottom or at its top, no discrimination is permissible in providing facilities to civil servants posted at the hill station, because the difficulties and hardships faced on account of geographical location of the station shall remain the same in both cases.
5. The other rule of interpretation of such law is to consider the reason and spirit of the law. This is the most effective way of discovering the true meaning of a law particularly when its expressions are dubious and subject to various interpretations. As mentioned earlier, the spirit of law is to provide financial benefit to civil servants posted at hilly stations faced with hardships and difficulties by virtue of geographical location of such stations. On this count as well, liberal interpretation of law alone is permissible.
6. Ordinarily, interpretation of a statute given by a department is also considered by Courts. Here in this case, initially the department also accepted the proposed interpretation of the notification, as such it included provisions for the allowance in the budgetary proposals. The Government and the legislature even, accepted the proposal of the department and sanctioned the budget for payment of hill allowance. The practice continued for about 4 years. This action of the respondents lends support to the case of the petitioners.
7. The action of refusal to pay hill allowance to the petitioners is bad, as such not to be acted upon for the following reasons:-
(i) The respondents right from the time of sanction of hill allowance, accepted the position of Mirpura village as having been situate at a height of 4000' from the sea level. The acquiesence of the respondents subsisted till April, 1988;
(ii) The Deputy Commissioner, who was empowered to determine the height of Mirpura, in his report of April 14, 1988, stated that the height of the village was 4000 from sea level. At the relevant time, Dupty Commissioner was the only competent authority to certify the height of the village. The report was submitted before the withdrawal of that authority. Therefore, the report is quite legal and it cannot be brushed aside lightly. In addition to that, a certificate issued by Assistant Professor M. Khurshid Khan of the Institute of Geology, Azad Janrmu and Kashmir University, Muzaffarabad, issued on February 29, 1988, corroborates the report of Deputy Commissioner. This is an expert opinion which has its own independent weight.
' Here it is relevant to state that geographical location of village Mirpura is hilly. Part of the population resides down beside the river bank while major part of it lives at various levels of height.
There is evidence of the fact that 90% population of the village resides at the height of 4000' or above from the sea level. It appears that the Committee misconstrued the object and purpose of the notification and instead of giving the height of village Mirpura, it adverted to confine to the height of the site of premises of the schools. This, in my view, was not permissible. In addition to the reasons described above, the proceedings of the Committee appended with the petition refer to the height of the villages where the civil servants were posted and not that of the premises of the institutions or Government buildings. The conclusion of the Committee being arbitrary on the face of it, cannot be acted upon.
8. Therefore, on going through the language of the notification which refers to the term "stations" and not the premises of institutions or departments, the inference is that in order to grant or refuse hill allowance, height of the station and not to the premises of the institution is to be taken into consideration. On this premises, the petition of the petitioners finds favour with this Court.
' The writ petition is, therefore, accepted. The respondents are directed to pay hill allowance to the petitioners for the period they served at the Boys and Girls High Schools Mirpura. Costs follow the event.