' The petitioners through this Constitutional petition have taken exception to the Memo No, 6(7)/86- Admn-IV, dated 20th of October, 1986 addressed by respondent No, 3 Ministry of Industries by respondent No, 4 intimating that the Design Allowance Farlier available to the petitioners was withdrawn and any amount paid on that account be worked out for its recovery and Memo No, HQ/P&E:6(26)/86-9, dated 23rd of April, 1988 emanating from respondent No, 3 i,e, Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Centre, Lahore, directing immediate stoppage of Design Allowance.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioners are employees of Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Centre, Lahore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the PITAC'). By virtue of Memo No, HQ/Admn:6(19), dated 23rd of August, 1977, the Design Allowance at the rate of 20% of salary was allowed to them keeping in view the nature of their duties with effect from 1st of June, 1977. The basic pay scale sanctioned by the Ministry of Finance was introduced in PITAC after its sanction from the President of Pakistan with effect from 1st of July, 1983 through letter dated 10th of June, 1984 emanated from the Ministry of Industries the parent department of the PITAC. Respecting Design Allowance it was provided as under:-- "Design Allowance: ' The officers and staff, including the General Manager will continue to receive the Design Allowance at the rates drawn by them on 1-7-1983. In the case of General Manager the drawal of allowance is subject to the condition that his lending department gives a certificate that he would have drawn this allowance in his parent department had his deputation to PITAC not been sanctioned. All persons appointed subsequent to the issue of this letter will receive Design Allowance only in accordance with para. 16 of the Finance Division O.M. Referred to above. This means that new entrants in B-16 and below will not be entitled to this allowance in future. Similarly new entrants in B-17 and above will be entitled to Design Allowance only at the rates laid down by the Government and subject to their possessing a degree in Engineering".
' Para. 16 of the Finance Division Memo dated 18-8-1983, reference of which is given above, provided that the Design Allowance would only be given to the Engineers holding University Degree in Engineering and working full time in the Design Offices.
3. Argument has been advanced that the petitioners' valuable right has been taken away unilaterally without affording them any opportunity of hearing resulting into loss in their salary. The petitioners, according to the learned counsel, are still working in the Design Office with the same nature of duties and the requirement of B.Sc. Degree cannot be imposed upon them as required under para.
16. A further argument has been advanced that no option whatsoever was taken from the petitioners qua the applicability of scheme of Basic Pay Scale to their establishment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that the authority, which has got the power to grant an allowance, has also the authority to withdraw the same. The Design Allowance being a favour, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, has been discontinued by the competent authority as the petitioners do not possess the required Engineering Degree as envisaged under para. 16.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the entire facts of this case. It is not denied that the petitioners have been working in the Design Office and were being paid Design Allowance for more than a decade. The budgetary provisions pertaining to the subsequent years demonstrate that the petitioners were allowed Design Allowance for all this period. It is also reflected from the documents appended with this petition that a detailed correspondence took place between the Ministry of Industries, the parent department of petitioners and the Chief Administrative Officer of PITAC as well as the Finance Department. The detailed statements of their budgetary provisions were forwarded by the PITAC showing that the Design Allowance had always been included in the budgetary provision.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that at one time Finance Division did agree to the proposal of giving Design Allowance to the petitioner gets support from the documents appended with this petition. This aspect is reflected from the noting of the Ministry of Finance wherein it was stated in categorical terms as under:-- "This Division agree that the employees of PITAC and MIRDC may continue to receive allowance as already admissible to them alongwith pay in the relevant Basic Pay Scale."
' The letter dated 10th of June, 1984 was also issued allowing the Design Allowance with the full concurrence of Ministry of Finance. Thus, a valuable right accrued to the petitioners cannot have been taken away without providing any opportunity of hearing to them. Reliance is placed upon Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407).
6. The condition of B.Sc Degree of Engineering at this later juncture cannot be imposed upon the petitioners for the reasons that they were already in receipt of Design Allowance much before its imposition particularly so when their nature of duties have remained same. This fact has not been denied by the learned Deputy Attorney-General who has stated that the petitioners are still working in the Design Office and the nature of their duties have not been changed. The other argument that at the time of applicability of basic pay scale and regularisation of allowances to PITAC, the petitioners were not given any option for the new set up has also got some force. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the writ petition is accepted and the memos dated 20-10-1986 as well as 3-4-1988 are declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances.