' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant retired from service as Deputy Auditor- General on 10-6-1972. The pension was computed as Rs,1,540 p.m. But by applying the then prevailing principle of 50% cut on pension in excess of Rs,1,000, the appellant was allowed to draw monthly pension @ Rs,1,270 p.m. Later on, the Pension Rules were liberalized with effect from 1-7- 1980 and 50% cut was imposed on the pension excess of Rs,2,000 (which was earlier Rs,1,000). Later on by yet another notification of the Finance Division the scheme of pension was further liberalized and all cuts were removed with effect from 1-7-1985. One Mr. Tufail Ahmed Qureshi had filed a representation to the A.G.P.R., Lahore in 1980 for raising the cut off point from Rs,1,000 to Rs,2,000 and for the restoration of his full pension. This representation was rejected by the department on the ground that the cut off point of Rs,2,000 was admissible to those who retired on or after 1- 771980 and not to those who were already retired. As a result of the appeal filed by said Mr. Tufail Ahmad Qureshi, this Tribunal held that the full pension may be restored to the said appellant with effect from 1-7-1980 without any reduction or deduction. The department filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court and the leave was refused vide judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian in C.P.L.A. No, 493/L of 1994, dated 21-12-1994. On getting the knowledge of the said verdict of Supreme Court the appellant also approached the department for restoration of his full pension with effect from 1-12-1980 but his application dated 17-8-1995 was rejected by the A.G.P.R. On 21-9-1995. He filed a departmental appeal on 20-9-1995 and after the expiry of the statutory period has approached this Tribunal.
2. The respondents contested the appeal on the ground that the case of Mr. Tufail Ahmed Qureshi was not applicable to the present appellant on the grounds that firstly the liberalized Pension Rules were enforced five years after the retirement of the present appellant and secondly that the judgment in case of Mr. Tufail Ahmed Qureshi was a judgment in person and not a judgment in rem, therefore, the benefit will accrue to the person who has come to the Court in time in accordance with the laid down procedure and since the appellant his not filed the departmental appeal within the statutory period, therefore, in accordance with the judgment in Appeal No, 260(L) of 1995 the appeal was barred by time.
3. On minute scrutiny of the judgment in Appeal No, 260(L) of 1995 we proposed that the view taken in the said judgment may be reconsidered and modified by a larger Bench, however, it has been finally desired that the matter may be adjudicated upon by this Bench. There are certain precedents that the Tribunal can differ with the view taken earlier particularly when such an exception is necessitated by the verdict of the Honourable Supreme Court.
4. The question of limitation was raised in the instant case as well as in the earlier case referred to above which has to be decided prior to the discussion on the rest of the points. Undoubtedly the appellant wants that the liberalized Pension Rules as notified on 28-6-1980 shall be applied to him and the deduction of Rs,270 p.m. With effect from 1-7-1980 be restored. There can be no denial of the fact that practically the cause of action accrued to the appellant on 28-6-1980 and that is why the learned counsel for the respondents stresses that the present appeal filed in 1995 i,e, after fifteen years was hopelessly barred by time. I personally do not subscribe to this argument for the simple reason that under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the period of limitation runs from the passing of final order and not from the accrual of cause of action as is the usual practice in other civil liabilities. In the instant case the cause of action arose when the Honourable Supreme Court laid down a principle for the grant of benefits to the pensioners and gave conclusive verdict on the interpretation of the notification dated 28-9-1980 in C.P.L.A. No,493/L of 1994. Thus, it will have to be held that with the decision in the said case the interpretation of the Notification dated 28-6-1980 attained the status of the law declared, and upon receipt of the information of the declaration of the said law the appellant moved the departmental representation which was rejected vide final order dated 12-9-1995 and, therefore, the appellant had rightly approached this Tribunal within time after fulfilling in the necessary formalities.
5. There is another aspect of this case that the denial of financial benefits is a recurring liability and the cause of action is renewed each time when the person is paid less. Thus, the issue of limitation can also be met on this ground as well.
6. While touching the main prayer in this appeal it will suffice to say that the matter had earlier been examined in a number of cases as reported in PLD 1983 Lah. 248, 1991 SCM R 1041 and finally by the verdict laid down in C.P.L.A. No, 493/L of 1994. Concurrently their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that with effect from 1-7-1980 the cut off point was increased from Rs,1,000 to Rs,2,000 irrespective of the fact that the pensioners proceeded on pension prior to or after that date. The facility was available to all pensioners and it could not be denied by the "erroneous interpretation by certain departments even it be Finance Division". It is to be noted with regret that despite the clear ruling by the superior Courts in unambiguous terms the Finance Division still has the impunity to refuse the benefit to the helpless pensioners on the ground that it was a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem. We fail to appreciate why generalization of the galaxy of judgments is being narrowed down as a decision in an individual case and why the poor pensioners are compelled to seek their remedies individually.
7. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the extension of benefit will open a Pandora box and all the pensioners will agitate the issue with greater force. We are sorry to observe that if the law is to be implemented, it has to take effect despite financial constraints. Even otherwise in this case the petitioner wants the restoration of a sum of Rs,270 p.m. With effect from 1-7-1980 till 1-7- 1985 when the benefit was extended to all the pensioners. Huge money is not involved in this case and we do not think there will be hundreds of pensioners retired earlier than 1980 who will get benefit out of this liberalized scheme.
8. With these observation, the appeal is accepted and it is hereby directed that the pension of the appellant may be revised with effect from 1-7-1980 without any reduction or deduction, in terms of Finance Division's Notification dated 28-6-1980 and the arrears so found due may be released to the appellant with costs. Parties be informed.