' I intend to dispose of Writ Petition No,9878 of 2001 filed by Syed Laeeq Haider Zaidi and Writ Petition No,9880 of 2001 filed by Ghulam Farid, as both are employees of Punjab Small Industries Corporation and have filed the writ petitions on identical questions hence both are disposed of through this judgment.
2. The brief facts in Writ Petition No,9878 of 2001. Are that Syed Laeeq Haider Zaidi petitioner joined the respondent on 1-3-1982 as Stenographer. His pay was duly re-fixed whereby he reached on 1- 12-1994 at maximum of BS.16 and Pay Fixation Order, dated 17-8-1995 was passed by respondent No,2 in pursuance of order, dated 15-8-1995 passed by respondent No,3 as well as and pay was fixed as admissible under the rules to the petitioner as per prevalent practice in the Corporation.
The petitioner voluntarily got retirement from service on 15-5-1997. At the time of assessment of pensionary dues of the petitioner the case was processed and the basic pay already fixed as Rs,5,490 vide order, dated 17-8-1995 was determined and verified for the purposes of pensionary dues. The petitioner claims that on 17-8-1995 the Pay Fixation Order by which the basic pay of the petitioner was determined at Rs,5,490 was approved by respondent No,2 as Competent Authority vide Payment Advice dated 13-5-1997. The petitioner according to the above said Advice was receiving the payment and he was drawing the said fixed pay till the subsequent increase made therein. The petitioner claims that he reached the maximum of BS-16 on 1-12-1994 and he was entitled to move-over in BS-17 but before it could be granted he opted for retirement. After his retirement on the recommendations of the Departmental Move-over Committee made in its meeting held on 2-9-1998 Managing. Director, PSIC as Competent Authority vide order, dated 16-9- 1998 granted successive move-over to the petitioner from BS-16 to BS.17 w,e,f, 1-12-1995.
Respondent No,2 vide order, dated 10-10-1998 fixed the new pay of the petitioner in BS.17 w,e,f, 1-12- 1995 as Rs,5,620 and from 1-1'2-1996 onwards at the rate of Rs,5,910 per month. The fixation of the pay of the petitioner as Rs,5,490 on 1-12-1994 in BS-16 was never challenged by the respondents and it continued till the retirement of the petitioner and the second move-over to BS-17. The order passed for re-fixation of the pay on 10-10-1998 was acted upon as the payment was made to the petitioner on 13-10-1998 on account of his pay difference due to the grant of successive move-over w,e,f, 1-12-1995 and 14-5-1997. The Revised Pension Payment Order was not issued hence the petitioner claims that he approached the respondents for the same on a number of times but all the efforts were failed hence he approached the Hon'ble Provincial Ombudsman on 30-12-2000.
The Provincial Ombudsman directed the respondents functionaries to redress the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner is not being made the payment of difference of pensionary dues sanctioned through Payment Advice dated 2-12-1998 and the petitioner claims that the payment may be ordered/directed to be realised by the respondents.
3. In the second Writ Petition 9880 of 2001 Ghulam Farid petitioner claims that he was serving in the respondents-Punjab Small Industries Corporation as Stenographer. On 28-12-1995 he voluntarily got retirement from service. At the time of his retirement he was drawing monthly basic pay of Rs,5,490 i,e,, maximum of pay scale No,16. After his retirement when the case of the pensionary dues of the petitioner was processed by the respondent-Corporation then respondent No,3 duly determined and verified those dues admissible to the petitioner and the Competent Authority vide order dated 11-1-1996 held that the petitioner is entitled to BS.17 by successive move-over and vide order, dated 16-9-1998 the successive move-over was granted to the petitioner from BS.16 to BS.17 w,e,f, 1-12-1994 and the petitioner's Revised Pay was re-fixed w,e,f, 1-12-1992 and the difference of his pensionary dues was calculated and duly verified by respondent No,3 and then approved by the respondent No,2 vide Advice dated 17-11-1998. The Advice dated 17-11-1998 was acted upon and the amount of difference was paid to the petitioner on 30-11-1998. The petitioner claims that subsequently the respondent has refused to give the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in Grade-17 which has been decided in the meeting of the Committee held on 22-7-2000 hence it is prayed in this writ petition that the order, dated 18-9-2000 may be declared as illegal and unlawful and may be set aside and the pensionary dues may be directed to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents on re-fixation advice dated 17-11-1998.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were rightly granted move-over in BS.17 and order, dated 17-11-1998 in both the cases was acted upon as the payment of difference of amount was duly paid to the petitioners. Subsequently the orders which are impugned in these writ petitions dated 18-9-2001 has been passed without lawful authority and the petitioners have been condemned unheard. The revision of making the payment of increments as personal pay over and above the time scale is not in accordance with the rules and is illegal and unlawful. It is further contended that the petitioners have no other alternate remedy except to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has opposed both the petitions on the grounds that the petitioners were wrongly granted move-over in BS-17 as they were already in BS.16 due to the move-over granted and successive move-over cannot be granted to a servant unless he is confirmed on the post he is already serving. One time only one move-over can be granted to a civil servant hence the orders which are being relied upon by the petitioners have been passed in violation of the rules and the Policy of the instructions of the Finance Department and the Competent Authority has rightly withdrawn the concession granted to them and the order is legal and passed with lawful authority.
6. I have learned the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with these petitions. The grant of move-over to the petitioners, from BS.16 to BS.17 according to the learned counsel for the respondents is illegal and unlawful as the petitioners were already in BS.16 due to the move-over. Government of Punjab, Finance Department issued instructions vide letter date 2-11-2000 which for facility of reference is reproduced as under:-- "Will the under Secretary (Tech), Government of the Punjab Industries and Mineral Development Department, please refer to his Letter No,SO(TECH) 2-97/95/113, dated 26th April, 2000 on the subject noted above.
' Finance Department observes that there is no ambiguity in the policy letter of this department dated 2-3-1986 (copy enclosed). The employees in BS.15, can be considered for move-over up to BS.16 only. They further will be entitled to move-over to BS.17 only when they are regularly promoted to BS.16 as per conditions prescribed in the above letter."
' Morevoer, the earlier letter of the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department dated 2-3-1986 is also referred on this point, Condition No,II whereof is as under:-- "Employees shall not be allowed to successive move-overs. However, if an employee who has moved over to a particular scale is subsequently promoted to a post carrying the same scale, he would again become eligible for a further move-over."
' From the perusal of the above said instructions it has become crystal clear that the instructions were issued by the Government of Punjab long time ago on 2-3-1986 by which all the Administrative Departments were directed not to allow two successive move-overs to an employee if he is not subsequently promoted to a post carrying the same scale, he will only be eligible for the second move-over only if he is promoted on the post on which he was working due to the move over. The petitioners admittedly were in BS-16 due to the move-over and the grant of second move-over in BS-17 to them when they reached to the maximum of BS.16 was in violation of the instructions of the Government of Punjab, which order for move-over to the petitioners in BS-17 could not be passed and this order has been passed which is the main basis for the filing of this writ petition in violation of the instructions of the Government of Punjab. The instructions issued by it have attained the status of law and all the Departments and Corporations are bound by the instructions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the instructions issued by the Department have attained the status of law. Reliance is placed on the judgments reported as Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan and 11 others (PLD 1970 SC 453), Messrs Radaka Corporation and others v.
Collector of Customs and another (1989 SCMR 353) and Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. v. Central Labour Commissioner and 5 others (PLD 1982 Karachi 33), hence the order passed on 16-9-1998 by the Managing Director of the respondents by which on the recommendations made in favour of the petitioners they have been granted successive move-over cannot be allowed to remain in the field. The petitioners have failed to make out a case on merits.
7. As far as the objection of the petitioners that the orders were acted upon and could not be taken back against the principle of natural justice is concerned even today the petitioners have been afforded full opportunity to dislodge all the arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents that second move-over can be granted to a person who is already on a move-over working on pay scale. Hence the petitioners have no case on merits and could not defend the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. The prayer cannot be granted to the petitioner directing the respondents to act upon any illegal actions by which the petitioners have got the benefit. However, it will be relevant to point out that the payment already made can be taken back by the respondents or not in view of the case law reported in "PLD 1992 SC 207", the benefits once given cannot be taken back. The respondents, however, are directed that in case of recovery of the amount which already has been paid to the petitioners in view of the order, passed on 11-9-1998 can be taken or not they shall keep in mind the abovesaid case law and shall decide the same on merits.
8. These petitions have no merits and are dismissed.