' AKHTAR HASSAN (CHAIRMAN).---It is an appeal by 316 appellants employed on the posts mentioned against the name of each of them at the Ayub Research Institute, Faisalabad or various branches thereof or the Regional Agriculture Researeh Institute, Bahawalpur. Asserting that their duty was two-fold:
(i) to work in the field in order to collect data and
(ii) to conduct research work thereon, they claimed the special research allowance at the rate of 20% of their basic pay as permissible under para. 20 of the Finance Department's letter dated 25- 8-1983 known as the Scheme of Basic Pay Scales and Fringe Benefits of the Punjab Government Employees 1983 (Annexure 'A') It reads:- "20% special research allowance:- ' Field officers on their appointment in Research Institutions for doing research work shall be allowed a special research allowance at the rate of 20 per cent of their basic pay."
' It was statedly paid to various Agriculture Assistants etc. Etc., from July, 1983 to December, 1984 but was then stopped by the order dated 6-2-1985 (Annexure 'C') on the plea that it was meant only for the Field Officers doing research work. As a result, 14 Research Officers of the Institute posted at Multan assailed the said order before this Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 107 to 110 of 1985. Those appeals were allowed vide the judgment dated 20-11-1985 (Annexure `E') holding that those appellants were essentially the Field Officers conducting research on the data collected by them from the fields and as such squarely fell within the mischief of para. 20 of the Scheme referred to above. An appeal brought before the Supreme Court against the aforesaid decision by, the respondent Department was dismissed vide the judgment dated 11-12-1983 (Annexure 'F') on the added ground that the Government of the Punjab in the Finance Department, by Memo. No, F.D.PC.2-1/87, dated 27th July, 1987 had altered their opinion by allowing this allowance to both field officers and those employed exclusively for research organization. It appears that the Government sought review of the said judgment on the ground that officers similarly placed will also claim research allowance from 1983 onwards and that the burden on the exchequer would be very heavy. The review application was dismissed but it was observed that the judgment was intra parties so that only those who had brought the appeal, shall take its benefit.
2. The present appellants were allowed the special Research Allowance with effect from 1-7-1987 onwards under the Finance Department clarification dated 27-7-1987 (Annexure 'H') but they claimed the same for the period 1-3-1983 to 30-6-1987 on the grounds that they were placed in the same category as were their colleagues numbering 14 bringing the earlier appeals and that otherwise they would be subjected to undue discrimination. Their own department supported their claim but the Finance Department in their letter dated 6-2-1990 (Annex. 'J') declined it. Their representation to the Governor was as well rejected by his order dated 8-3-1992 (Annex. `L') not on merits but on the extraneous ground of heavy burden on the exchequer. Finally they preferred the instant appeal.
3. The main grounds to substantiate the appeal were (i) that the appellants would be made to suffer from discrimination qua their 14 colleagues, (ii) that despite the observations of the Supreme Court that the judgment (Annex. 'F') being intra-parties would enure only in favour of the persons who had brought that appeal, the general rule laid down by the Punjab Government in para. 3 of their policy letter dated 16-10-1973 (Annex. 'M') finding approval in PLD 1991 SC 1118 and 1971 SCM R 688 impressed upon the need to admit all such claim with a view to avoid burdening the Government with the costs of litigation likely to be brought by others and to harmonise its relations with them, and (iii) that refusing them equal treatment on the ground of increasing the liability of the exchequer was neither here nor there as it was rejected in their judgment dated 8-10-1989 (Annex. `G') by the Supreme Court.
4. The respondents contested the appeal in their written objections denying liability to pay the allowance to the appellants. It was explained that they got it by misinterpreting para. 20 of the RBPS-83, that the Government was not inclined to extend benevolence to them on the basis of the earlier judgment which was held to be intra-partes and that they were not the field officers for whom along the allowance was sanctioned.
5. If 14 colleagues of the present appellants were granted the allowance, there was no earthly reason to refuse it to them. This is what Article 25 of the Constitution impinges upon. There was no denial of the fact that the appellants and those 14 officers/officials were similarly placed, similarly situate or similarly circumstanced and were a fortiori to be treated alike. In fact no distinction was suggested between these two groups workwise or in any other way and hence in the absence of any reasonable classification, equal protection of law could not possibly be denied to them.
Among the number of authorities cited in the memo. Of appeal on the point, it would suffice to rely on PLD 1975 SC 505 (Brig. (Retd.) F.A. Ali v. The State) and PLD 1990 SC 295 (Shrin Munir v.
Government of the Punjab) which afforded equal protection to persons similarly circumstanced.
6. If I could say, the appellants were forced to resort to this litigation much too against the Punjab Government Policy letter dated' 16-10-1973 (Annex. M) the key words whereof exhorted extending benevolence of an intra-partes judgment even to those who were not a party to it but were similarly circunstanced. If the Government somehow did not feel inclined to be so gracious, the Tribunal has no hesitation in granting it to them at least on the principle of equal protection of law.
1991 SCM R 1041 at page 1063 (IA. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others) empowers this Tribunal to grant relief against infringement of such a right. The plea of causing burden to the exchequer was too artificial a ground to withhold payment of the allowance to the appellants, who would otherwise meet a less favourable and discriminatory treatment. Any such situation has to be eliminated rather than encouraged. It is a fundamental right of the appellants to be dealt with alike vis-a-vis their colleague no matter the exchequer finds it burdensome.
7. As a result, the appeal in allowed. The appellants are declared entitled to receive the allowance in question for the period 1-3-1983 to 30-6-1987. Parties shall bear their own costs.
' Note: The 3rd Member named Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan has retired.