1. ' MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, C.J.---Through this writ of mandamous petitioners have sought- payment of 20% Secretariat Allowance with effect from 1-7-1988. It has been emphatically urged by Mr. Tahir Muhammad Khan, Advocate that petitioners are employees of Geological Survey Department in Balochistan. They were entitled to payment of 20% Secretariat Allowance which is being paid to their counterparts in other Provinces. Learned counsel contended that petitioners have been discriminated against and would suffer recurring losses if Secretariat Allowance of 20% is not paid to them. Reliance was placed on the judgments announced in Writ Petition No, 429/94 and several others decided by High Court of Lahore vide judgment dated 20-3-1994 and C.P. No, 149/90, decided by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12th September, 1991.
2. Reference has also been made to the observations of Lahore High Court in an Interim-Order, dated 14-7-1994, passed in Civil Miscellaneous No, 1062/94 by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court.
3. ' Learned Advocate-General emphatically contended that after announcement of new budget the Secretariat Allowance stands amalgamated in the salary, therefore, demand for payment of said allowance through this petition is unjustified.
4. ' Learned Deputy Attorney-General also strenuously urged that Secretariat Allowance has ceased to exist and completely merged in the salary of Government employees. Therefore, any claim made by petitioners in that behalf is not tenable under the law.
5. We have carefully examined all aspects of the case. It is quite apparent that Secretariat Allowance which is to be separately paid to special class of employees has been made part and parcel of the salary. Memorandum dated 15th June, 1994 issued by Finance Division merely regulates pay scales of the employees of Federal Government and does not advance claim put forth in this petition.
6. Since Secretariat Allowance has completely ceased to exist and stands merged into salary of Government- Employees, therefore, same cannot be indirectly claimed by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Thus under changed situation on the promulgation of Finance Act, 1994 dictum of aforequoted judgment, is of no help to petitioners.
7. ' For the foregoing reasons in our opinion petition is not maintainable. Same is consequently dismissed in limine.