1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---We propose to dispose of the abovementioned 18 petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan, through a consolidated order, as all these petitions are directed against the common interim order of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, dated 9-3-1994.
2. ' The respondents in the above petitions filed writ petitions, details whereof are mentioned in para. One of the impugned order, claiming entitlement for payment of Secretariat Allowance at the rate of 20 per cent. All the writ petitions have been admitted to regular hearing. During pendency of these petitions the respondents moved the Court for grant of an interim relief for payment of the Secretariat Allowance to them. The learned Judge in Chambers relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Government of Punjab through Secretary, Finance v.-Punjab Public Service Commission (1992 SCM R 1847) granted interim relief to respondents and directed that respondents in C.P.LAs. 171, 172, 174, 175 and 193 of 1994 be paid Secretariat Allowance w,e,f. 1-7-1988 in terms of Notification dated 1-7-1988 while respondents in the remaining petitions be paid Secretariat Allowance w,e,f. 1-3-1994 by the petitioner. Until disposal of the writ petitions filed by them in the High Court. It is also recorded in the impugned order that the respondents in the above petitions have undertaken to refund the Secretariat Allowance received by them in the event the Writ Petitions filed by them are decided against them.
3. ' The learned Standing Counsel appearing in support of the petitions contended before us that on account of grant of Secretariat Allowance at an interim stage to respondents, the main relief claimed in their Write Petitions, which are still pending adjudication, has been granted before decisions on the petitions. It is also contended by the learned standing counsel that payment of Secretariat Allowance will bring serious financial burden on the Government for which no budgetary provision exists. The contentions of learned standing counsel have no force. The learned Judge in Chambers having found a prima facie case in favour of respondents had the jurisdiction to grant interim relief to them in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Government of Punjab v. Punjab Public Service Commission (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any distinction between the facts of present case and the above-cited case.
4. Apart from it, the learned standing counsel very fairly drew our attention to another case reported as Government of Pakistan v. M.I. Cheema Deputy Registrar, F.S.C. (1992 SCM R 1852) in which this Court refused to interfere with the interim order of High Court granting Secretariat Allowance to the employees of Federal Shariat Court during pendency of their Writ Petition. However, we find that the learned Judge in Chambers while granting interim relief to the respondents directed the respondents in C.P.L.As. Nos. 171, 172, 174, 175 and 193 of 1994 will be paid Secretariat Allowance w,e,f.
5. 1-7-1988, which is a date even prior to the filing of Writ Petitions by them in the High Court. Such an order in our view could not be made at an interim stage when their Writ Petitions were still pending decision before the Court. Normally, a relief claimed by a party in the case cannot be granted by way of interim measure. An interim relief has to be short of the main relief claimed in the case, otherwise, it may in certain circumstances amounts to prejudging the whole case. The learned counsel for the respondents in C.P.LAs. Nos.171, 172, 174, 175 and 193 of 1994; however, stated that respondents in these petitions were already receiving the Secretariat Allowance and therefore, they could not be denied payment of Secretariat Allowance during pendency of the petitions. There is nothing in the impugned judgment to show that the respondents in C.P.LAs. Nos. 171, 172, 174, 175 and 193 of 1994 were already being paid the Secretariat Allowance by the petitioner from 1-7-1988.
6. However, we may clarify that those respondents who were already receiving Secretariat Allowance from 1-7-1988 will continue to receive the same but under the interim order which is impugned in these petitions, the respondents in all the above petitions will be paid the Secretariat Allowance only from 1-3-1994. We, accordingly, convert above petitions into appeals and dispose them of by modifying the judgment of High Court as stated above. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.