' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellants M/s. M. Nazir Mughal, Sadaqat Hussain, Muhammad Riaz Mughal, M. Ashraf Khan, Ehsanul Haq and Ali Muhammad Sabir are working in the Staff Welfare Organisation and they have filed Appeals Nos. 292, 299, 300, 301, 302 and 303(R)/94.
Their case is that under Office Memorandum No, F.3(17)R-II/84, dated 1-7-1986, issued by the Finance Division whereby Instructional allowance @ 20% of the minimum of the pay scale with effect from 1-7-1986 was allowed to all officials deployed in instructional duties in various training institutions under the Federal Government or autonomous/semi-autonomous organisations imparting training to Government servants, may also be extended to them. Their case was recommended by the Staff Welfare Organisation to the Establishment Division and the matter was referred to the Finance Division. The Finance Division vide its Office Memorandum dated 2-2-1991 informed the Establishment Division that the training centres run by the Staff Welfare Organisation were not included in the Secretaries Committee list and that Finance Division was not in a position to advise whether such training centres may be treated as training institutions of the Federal Government. The matter was further examined by the Establishment Division in consultation with the Finance Division and vide U.O. Dated 15-9-1991 addressed to the Director-General, Staff Welfare Organisation gave opinion that in 1984 a Committee named Secretaries Committee on Civil Servants and Police' was constituted to go through the training institutions of national stature which recommended instructional allowance to the training institutions but the institutions run by the Staff Welfare Organisation were not recommended and the request was declined. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed complaint to the Wafaqi Mohtasib who by decision dated 12-6-1994 advised the appellants to approach the Service Tribunal for redress of their grievances.
Accordingly, the appellants have filed these appeals with the prayer to pass orders for the grant of instructional allowance and intimate the Establishment Division, Finance Division, Director-General, Staff Welfare Organisation and AGPR, Islamabad so that payment may be made.
2. We have heard the appellants at length. The case of the appellants is that there is discrimination as the instructional allowance is being paid to the Secretariat Training Institute on the basis of Finance Division Office Memorandum dated 1-7-1986. It is argued that the appellants are also imparting training to the Federal Government employees and there should be no discrimination.
3. Mr. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for official respondents, with the assistance of departmental representative, argued that the Staff Welfare Organisation has not been established to give training to the Federal Government employees or officers but it is a welfare organization for the dependents of the Federal Government employees, therefore, their cases are not covered under the provisions of Office Memorandum dated 1-7-1986. The representative of the department furnished a list of persons who are getting training and such persons are the dependents of the Government employees and this is not an institute which is giving training to the employees of the Federal Government as is being done by the Secretariat Training Institute. It is a welfare organisation for the dependents of the Government employees who are interested in learning typing, shorthand and secretarial job and they can seek admission at their own by getting permission from their departments, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit. In comments, point of limitation also has been taken by the respondents.
4. The objectives of the Trade Training Centres are to impart training to unskilled male and female dependents who are looking for jobs in Secretariat and other trades; to gainfully employ the hitherto unutilised manpower and make them participate in the economic activity for national development; to meet the growing demand of Secretariat personnels being rare commodity in the market; to provide technical training to the drop cuts; to reduce the rate of unemployment in the country and the training facilities are limited to the extent of only typing, shorthand and Secretariat trade to the dependents of the employees. It is also clear that no training courses on the pattern of Secretariat Training Institute are being run by the Staff Welfare Organisation but only LDCs and UDCs or Assistant can take admission to improve shorthand and typing. The respondents have rightly contended that this Organisation is meant for the benefits of the dependents of the Government employees and cannot be .Termed as Training Institute for which 20% allowance is admissible and the appellants .Are not entitled to this benefit. The record produced by both the parties also bears out that on the applications submitted by the Federal employees, their dependents are allowed admission and imparted training in typing and shorthand. Moreover, it is not a term and condition of service whereby the appellants could claim this benefit as of right and the Government is the best judge to determine as to which of the Training Institutions are entitled to this benefit. The case of this organisation has been examined at various stages and rightly held that this Welfare Organisation does not come under the purview of Finance Division Office Memorandum dated 1-7-1986.
5. The appeals also fail on the point of limitation. The matter remained under correspondence between the Staff Welfare Organisation, Establishment Division and the Finance Division but the claim of the appellants was declined by the Finance Division and one of the appellants, namely Mr. M. Nazir Mughal, was duly informed vide Establishment Division Office Memorandum dated 25-6- 1992 (the other appellants have also relied on this letter as per record). The appellants were supposed to file appeals before this Tribunal within thirty days which they failed to do. One of the appellants viz. M. Nazir Mughal filed another appeal on 24-12-1992 to the Establishment Secretary but the same was rejected vide O.M. Dated 5-4-1993 by the Staff Welfare Organisation on the ground that the case had been considered at appropriate level but it had not been found possible to accede to the request. The appellants instead of coming to this Tribunal approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib but the complaint was rejected with the observations that this being a service matter was not under his purview and advised to approach the Tribunal by order dated 12-6-1994.
Admittedly, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected vide Office Memorandum dated 5-4- 1993 and under the Rules, it was incumbent upon the appellants to have preferred appeal before this Tribunal within thirty days and this having not been done, all the appeals are also time-barred.
The appellants have not filed applications for condonation of delay.
6. All the six appeals fail on merits as well as on point of limitation and , are being disposed of by this common judgment as facts and legal points raised are identical.