' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Through this common order we propose of dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.349 of 1997 and 1208-L of 1997, arising out of orders respectively passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi and Multan Benches in Writ Petitions Nos.2045 of 1996 and 3561 of 1997.
2. The dispute herein relates to 30% disturbance allowance, which was granted to the staff of the Lahore High Court, who joined service prior to 1981, vide Letter No,CAB-I/4-86/83, dated 10-11-1986, issued by the Government of Punjab.
3. The brief facts are that the respondents have been receiving this allowance till May, 1994 but later it was stopped.
4. In view of the Constitutional petitions filed by the respondents before their respective Benches of the Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi and Multan, the High Court allowed the payment of the disputed allowance to the respondents, inter alia, on the following grounds:- "3. The stand taken by the petitioner is legally sound for the reason that the disturbance allowance is to be given when the employee of the Lahore High Court is to be disturbed and the words "30% of his basic pay" are also material and most relevant to decide this controversy. This 30% is to be seen according to the time when disturbance takes place "
5. Mr. Altaf Elahi Sheikh, learned Additional Advocate-General respectfully submitted that the disturbance allowance had been paid to Mr. Arshad Munawar, Private Secretary due to computer mistake and a decision had been taken to recover the same. However, no document has been placed on record to show that the impugned allowance has been recovered from the aforesaid official or any decision in regard thereto has been taken by the Competent Authority. In die circumstance, the High Court was right in allowing the petition on the ground of discriminatory treatment being meted out to the respondents.
6. In view of the above, we find no force in these petitions. It may, however, be observed that the decision rendered by the High Court in the instant cases shall be confined to the facts of the present case.
7. With this observation, the petitions are dismissed and .