1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Petitioners are in the employment of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. Their grievance is that vide office order dated 22nd August, 1988, Director-General of the Corporation, with the prior approval of Federal Government, allowed 20% Secretariat Allowance on the pay scale with effect from 1-7-1988, to its employees, posted at Islamabad. Subsequently it was decided that said Secretariat Allowance can be retained by its employees to whom, it was allowed vide date mentioned hereinabove, as personal allowance, but as far as new entrants in service are concerned, they will not be entitled for this facility. Later on yet another decision was taken on 1st June, 1991, whereby it was decided that personal allowance would be in lieu of allowance, which was formerly Secretariat Allowance at the rate of 20% in Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation employees at Headquarter office and the units which are housed at National Broadcasting House, Islamabad. Since personal allowance was not being paid to the employees of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation at other Centers including Quetta, therefore, a Constitutional petition was instituted before this Court bearing No, 43/94, which was accepted on 14th December, 1994. The judgment was questioned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by respondents, but leave to file appeal was refused vide order dated 26th June, 1995. Thereafter, two more Constitutional petitions were filed by the employees of High Power Transmission and Khuzdar Radio Station under titles, Syed Nasimuddin v. Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and Syed Noor Azher Jaffery v.
2. Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation of Pakistan. These petitions as well were allowed on 11-1-1997, because petitioners' name were not included in the earlier petitions, therefore, when they approached for grant of 20% personal allowance, it was refused to them, because no judicial order exist in their favour, thus instant petition has been filed. Their case is that previous Judgment was a judgment in rem, deciding the question of entitlement in respect of all the employees, therefore, they are also entitled for the same benefits. They have claimed following relief in this petition:- "It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents may graciously be directed to pay personal allowance @ 20% to the petitioners at the same rate and from the same date as is being paid to their counter parts employed at its Headquarters Office, Islamabad and National Broadcasting House, Islamabad, in the interest of Justice."
3. ' Mr. K.N. Kohli, learned counsel argued on behalf of petitioners that in C.P. No,43 of 1994, decided on 14th December, 1994 and C.P.306 of 1995 decided on 11th January, 1997. It has been held that employees of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation are entitled for personal allowance at the rate of 20% of their pay. The earlier decision of this Court has also been confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as leave to appeal was refused. Moreover this allowance has been granted by some of the other Organizations to their employees, like the High Courts of all the Provinces, Federal Shariat Court, employees of National Assembly, Senate as well as Labour Appellate Tribunal of N.-W.F.P.
4. Including employees of Corporation, who have filed earlier petitions, therefore, respondents have no lawful authority, to discriminate petitioners in payment of personal allowance. As such, he contended that petitioners are also entitled for personal allowance, at the rate of 20% of the pay as personal allowance.
5. ' Mr. Tariq Mehmood, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, as well as Mr. M.S. Rukhshani, learned Deputy Attorney-General, contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law, with regard to payment of Secretariat allowance or personal allowance, in the judgment reported in 1997 SCM R 1026, wherein it has been held that personal allowance has been merged in 35% enhancement of revised pay scale. As such, the petitioners are not entitled, as a matter of right to claim said allowance. According to them, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, independently had not granted any personal allowance to its employees, because they got approval from the Federal Government on the analogy that as 20% of the pay is being given to the employees of Secretariat, therefore, this allowance be also allowed to the employees of Corporation, treating it as personal allowance. Since the Federal Government has withdrawn this facility from the Secretariat employees, therefore, it cannot be granted to the employees of other Organizations, including Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation.
6. ' We have heard the parties' counsel and also perused the relevant Judgments relied upon by them and the notifications, which have been reproduced in the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1997 SCM R 1026.
7. ' It is noteworthy that as far as the earlier Judgment given by this Court in C.P. No,43/94, is concerned that was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a petition for leave to Appeal before a Bench, comprising of their Lordships Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and Mr. Justice Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, as then he was. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not declare any Rule of Law, nor pronounced any principle of law in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore, with utmost respect, it is observed that refusal to grant leave by Hon'ble Supreme Court would not confer a right upon petitioners to argue that they are entitled for 20% personal allowance, as a matter of right. Subsequently in the last mentioned judgment (1997 SCM R 1026), a Bench of Hon'ble Five Judges of Supreme Court, headed by his lordship Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian, delivered a judgment in appeal, whereby law has been laid down in respect to the admissibility of personal allowance or Secretariat Allowance to the employees of Secretariat, therefore, under Article 189 of the Constitution, whatever principle has been declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court it would have binding effect on this Court.
8. ' As far as Secretariat allowance to the employees working in Federal Secretariat, is concerned, it was initially allowed to employees of Federal Secretariat, President Secretariat, Prime Minister Secretariat, National Assembly Secretariat and Senate Secretariat, with effect from 1st July, 1988, as per office memorandum of the even date. Since the employees of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation were not members of any Secretariat, mentioned hereinbefore, therefore, subsequently on 22nd August, 1988, the Ministry of Finance observed that the benefit of Secretariat Allowance be also extended to the employees of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, working in the Headquarters only. In pursuance of such decision of Finance Ministry, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Headquarter, Islamabad, vide order dated 12th September, 1988 directed that Secretariat allowance would be admissible to its employees posted at Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Headquarter with effect from 1st July, 1988, including employees of the Units who are posted in National Broadcasting House, Islamabad and form part of the P.B.C. Headquarter.
9. Subsequently the Secretariat allowance was converted into personal allowance by P.B.C. Vide its Letter No,3/2(23)/88, dated 22nd February, 1990, subject to certain conditions, specified in said Letter. Since employees of P.B.C. Posted in Province of Baluchistan were not getting said Secretariat Allowance (Personal Allowance) therefore, they instituted C.P.No,43 of 1994, before this Court, which was accepted vide Judgment dated 14th December, 1994, whereby writ was allowed, principally on the ground that there should not be discrimination between the employees of P.B.C. Posted at Islamabad or anywhere else therefore, the petitioners before this court were found entitled for the benefits of Secretariat (Personal) Allowance at the rate of 20% of the basic pay scale. It is important to note that during hearing of said petition, it was pointed out on behalf of official respondents that the Secretariat Allowance or Personal Allowance has been merged in new scales therefore, petitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed by them. But his argument was not entertained because no policy was formulated by the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation in accordance with law. However, subsequently the Secretariat Allowance was merged in the Revised Pay Scales of Civil Servants of B-1 to B-22, as per Finance Division O.M. No,F.1 (2)-IMP/94 (1), dated 15th June, 1994.
10. Relevant paras. From this Office Memorandum, dealing with the allowances, including Secretariat Allowance, is reproduced herein below:- "Allowances:
(i) Secretariat Allowance.--With the introduction of new scales of pay, the Secretariat Allowance is abolished with effect from 1-6-1994 will be converted into personal allowance. Such Personal Allowance in case of Government employees in BPS/17-22 shall be reduced by the amount of annual increments, by which the Government employees' pay may be increased after 1-6-1994, and shall cease as soon as his pay is increased by an amount equal to/or more than his Personal Allowance. Those in BPS 1-16 will be exempted from this adjustment to the extent that their Personal Allowance will not be reduced/adjusted.
(ii) Other Allowances, Special Pays etc.-- Special pays and other allowances including House Rent Allowance will be maintained at the level drawn/ admissible at the rates as on 31st May, 1994.
11. ' OPTION:
(a) All existing Government employees are given option either to draw the existing pay scales plus Secretariat Allowance or the new pay scales plus Personal Allowance in the manner as at 5(i) above. Option to retain existing scale with Secretariat Allowance must, however, be given in writing by the employees concerned to the Audit Office/Drawing and Disbursing Officer concerned by the 15th July, 1994. Option once exercised shall be final.
(b) An existing Government employee who does not exercise and communicate such option within the prescribed time limit, shall be deemed to have opted to be governed by the new scales and abolition of Secretariat Allowance."
12. ' A perusal of para. 6 abundantly clarifies that Secretariat allowance or personal Allowance would only be payable to those employees, who have opted for revised pay scales. Since petitioners independently were not drawing personal allowance on basis of any special allowance to the employees of P.B.C. Either posted at Islamabad or somewhere else, because they were also given benefit of Secretariat allowance on the pattern, as it was extended to the employees of Federal Secretariat, P.M. Secretariat, President Secretariat, etc. Therefore, on the abolition of said allowance, if the employees of those Secretariats are not entitled for the same, the employees of the P.B.C.
13. Can also not claim payment of this allowance as a matter of right, because admittedly revised pay scales from B-1 to B-22 have also been applied to the employees of P.B.C., therefore, they would also be governed strictly, in view of above para. 6 of the office Memorandum dated 15th June, 1994.
14. Petitioners' counsel did not produce any document on record to contend that none of them had opted for the revised pay scale, therefore, they are still entitled for the payment of Secretariat Allowance. Even otherwise, they cannot opt for 20% Secretariat allowance after the revision of basic pay scales, when 35% increase was made in the pays of employees, working in BPS-1 to BPS-22, except with one distinction that the employees in BPS-1 to 16 were authorised to enjoy the increase of 35% with effect from 31st May, 1994, whereas the employees in BPS-17 and above were allowed increase in their pays in two phases, firstly, they were authorised to draw increase of 20% with effect from 1st June, 1994 and remaining 15 % was allowed to them with effect from 1st June, 1995.
15. Therefore, no employee either serving in Government Department or being employee of Corporation would go for increase to the extent of 20%. Being the personal allowance, leaving 35% accumulative increase in the pay. Therefore, in such view of the matter, petitioners after the revision of basic pay scale were not entitled to claim personal allowance from respondents. In this behalf Humble Supreme Court in the case, relied upon by Mr. Tariq Mehmood, counsel for respondents, has held that as far as Secretariat/Personal Allowance, is concerned, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. For sake of guidance, relevant para from the Judgment, is reproduced hereinbelow:- "The protection available to the civil servants under the Act is only to the extent of their pay as provided under section 17 of the Act. However, no such protection is available in respect of the allowance paid to a Government servant under the rules framed from time to time. The learned Deputy Attorney-General has invited our attention to the Regulation 61 of Civil Service Regulations, which reads as follows:- "61. Unless in any case it is specifically ordered otherwise by the authority sanctioning it, a personal allowance should be reduced by any amount by which the recipient's pay or salary may be increased and should cease as soon as his pay or salary is increased by an amount equal to his personal allowance."
16. ' The petitioner has not challenged the vires of above regulation nor any argument has been advanced before us to show that the above regulation which is saved in terms of section 25(2) of the Act is in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The above-quoted regulation clearly provided that personal allowance is liable to be reduced by the amount to be received by recipient of such allowance as a result of increase in the salary and it shall cease to be payable as soon as the pay or salary is increased by the amount equal to his personal allowance. It is admitted position before us that under Finance Division O.M. Dated 15-6-1996, where under the revised basic pay scales of Federal Government employees serving in B-1 to B-22 were enforced, the Secretariat Allowance was totally abolished and paragraph 5 of the said O.M. Provided for gradual adjustment of Secretariat Allowance against annual increment due under the revised scheme with effect from 1-6-1994 until such time the pay of the concerned employee was increased either equal to or more than the Secretariat Allowance received by him. The adjustment allowed under paragraph 5 of the above O.M. Is totally in accord with the Regulation 61 relied by learned Deputy Attorney-General. As earlier pointed out by us, the allowances paid to a Government employee are not protected under any statutory provision, therefore, their withdrawal by the Government could not be challenged on any legal plane. In the case before us it is quite clear that as a result of revision of pay scales of Federal Government employees in BPS-1 to 22, the basic pays were increased by more than the amount of Secretariat Allowance. Since the Government has allowed substantial increase in the basic pay scales of the Government employees which in no case was less than the Secretariat Allowance received by the employee concerned, the abolition of secretariat Allowance could not be objected to by the concerned Government servant. Apart from paragraph 6 of the above O.M. Clearly allowed an option to the Government servants either to opt under the revised pay scales which allowed them increase of 35% of the basic pay (which was more than the Secretariat allowance received by them) or to continue to draw their pay under the old scheme plus Personal Allowance or Secretariat Allowance which they were receiving on the date of issuance of that O.M. There is nothing on record before us to show that the petitioner or any other employee of the Federal Government who have made application 'for being joined as party in this petition, had opted for the old scales of pay. Since the petitioner has opted for the revised scales of pay enforced under O.M. Dated 15-6-1994, he could not lay claim to the Secretariat Allowance in terms of option under the said O.M."
17. ' It may be noted that earlier judgment, pronounced by this Court in C.P.No,43 of 1994, on 14-12-1994, is distinguishable, because the learned counsel, then appearing on behalf of parties did not brought in notice of Court that secretariat allowance, in fact has been abolished in terms of office memorandum dated 15th June, 1994. Since now the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the law, relevant para wherefrom has been reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that after abolition of Secretariat Allowance, the employees of BPS would also not be entitled for it.
18. ' Thus for the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.