1. NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This judgment will dispose of Services Appeals Nos. 22 of 1993 and 4 of 1994 which have been preferred by the Appellant in respect of the same matter. The former is against the order, dated 21st November, 1993, passed by the then Chief Secretary to Government of Sind and in the latter order, dated 21-2-1994 of Chief Minister of Sind has been challenged. The facts relevant for decision of these appeals are as follows:-- Appellant Rana Bhagwandas, now a learned Judge of this Court, while serving as District and Sessions Judge was granted BPS-20 with effect from 24-3-1992, as per Notification No. S:JUD:3-1/92, dated 21-6-1992 issued by the Law Department, Government of Sind on being posted as Registrar of this Court from the former date. From the date of posting as Registrar, he applied for "Orderly Allowance", admissible to the Secretariat Employees serving in BPS-20 and above. His request was not acceded by the Chief Secretary and Chief Minister, as per their orders which have been impugned in these appeals.
2. The Government of Pakistan from 1-7-1988 vide Office Memorandum No. F.1(32)-IMP-11/88, dated 1st July, 1988 had granted 20 % of basic pay to the employees serving in the Federal Secretariat, President Secretariat, Prime Minister Secretariat, National Assembly Secretariat, Senate Secretariat, and the Central Board of Revenue, known as Secretariat Allowance. The Government of Sind also allowed said allowance to the employees serving in Sind Secretariat.
3. Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan vide Memorandum No. 13/4/77.F.I., dated 30th April, 1977 allowed officers in Grade-20 and above an orderly at their residence out of the sanctioned strength of peons of the Ministry/Division/Department. Said Division by Memorandum No.F-1(3)- imp.II/85, dated 24th October, 1985 gave an option to the entitled officers either to retain the orderly or to receive an "orderly allowance" of Rs.800 p.m. In lieu thereof. This facility was also allowed by Government of Sind, vide Finance Department letter, dated 10th February, 1986 and later on by letter, dated 7th January, 1991 the rate of "Orderly Allowance" was revised from Rs.800 to Rs.1,000 with effect from 1-12-1990 and by letter, dated 19th September, 1995 it was again revised from Rs.
4. 1,000 to Rs.1,600 with effect from 1st September, 1995.
5. A Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a Member, in Constitutional Petition No. D-1715 of 1991 allowed 20% Secretariat Allowance to the officials/Officers of this Court with effect from I-7-1988, as per judgment, dated 5-4-1993. Government of Sind challenged said judgment but the leave was not granted vide judgment, dated 23rd June, 1993 of the Supreme Court, passed in Appeal No. 200- K of 1993.
6. The question of grant of 20% of the pay as Secretariat Allowance to the employees of the Lahore High Court came under discussion before the Supreme Court in the case reported as Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Finance Department, Lahore v. Mubarik Ali Khan and 8 others PLD 1993 SC 375. Mr. Shafiur Rahman, J.- (as he then was) speaking on behalf of the Full Bench consisting of five (5) Judges, observed at page 390 as follows: "The High Court employees perform almost identical functions as do the employees of these to other Courts perform. The employees of all the three Courts have been dealt with constitutionally by the same provision reproduced above. In toe circumstances, the High Court's employees cannot be discriminated against. The 'necessary provision of Secretariat/Personal Allowance had to be made in respect of such employees as was made in the case of the Federal Shariat Court and the Supreme Court employees."
7. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that this having been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the 'employees of the High Court are entitled to Secretariat Allowance/Personal Allowance and the "Orderly Allowance" being a Secretariat Allowance, the respondents were not justified in refusing the same to the appellant.
8. As against above, Mr. Zawar Hussain Jaferi, learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the appellant basically was in BPS-19 when he was posted as Registrar and BPS-20 was granted to him as "Selection Grade" and that the allowance in question was Secretariat Allowance, and was confined to only those actually serving in the Secretariat. He also argued that the "Orderly Allowance" has not been given to the Registrars of Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta High Courts.
9. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the post of Registrar, High Court of Sind with effect from 6-12-1992 was upgraded and the appellant was promoted in BPS-20 from said date. This is evident from the record and this factual aspect has not been disputed by learned Additional Advocate-General.
10. Orderly Allowance is a Secretariat Allowance and the only difference in between this allowance and said Secretariat Allowance is that this is admissible in addition to 20% to only those serving in BPS-20 and above, while the latter is admissible to all serving in the Secretariat irrespective of their grades. It is not disputed nor it could be disputed that the appellant, as Registrar, was drawing Secretariat Allowance as admissible under the Rules. Having been promoted in BPS-20 he was also entitled to Orderly Allowance with effect from 6th December, 1992. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the Registrars of Lahore, Peshawar, and Quetta High Courts are serving in BPS-19. It being so Orderly Allowance is not admissible to them.
11. On 15-12-1996, after hearing the arguments, we had allowed these appeals and these are the reasons for the same.