1. ' In there three Appeals Nos. 535, 552 and 549 preferred by the Government of the Punjab, against Malik Ghulam Hussain, Ch. Mohammad Siddiq and Rana Fiyaz Hussain have been directed against the order of the senior Civil Judge, Montgomery (now Sahiwal) decreeing the suit of the respondents allowing them House Rent @ Rs, 35 p.m. And conveyance allowance @ Rs, 11/4 in either case. The three appeals involve the common question of law and therefore are disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. ' In these appeals the respondents who held the rank of Prosecution Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors respectively initially joined the Police Department on the terms and conditions advertised for the posts held by them which inter alia included the above allowances as part of the emoluments.
3. These emoluments were admissible to them under the provisions of rule 10.75 and rule 10.7E of the Police Rules framed by the Inspector-General of Police under sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act (V of 1861). After the enforcement of West Pakistan Civil Servants (Non-Gazetted) Pay Revision Rules, 1959, effective from 14th October 1955, a letter Exh. P/5 (in the Civil Suit) was issued by the Secretary to Government, Home Department addressed to the Inspector-General of Police, West Pakistan discontinuing all other allowances to the prosecution staff excepting the Special pay. The learned trial Court on 30-3-64 held that the provisions of West Pakistan Civil Servants (Non-Gazetted) Pay Revision Rules, 1959 could only be made applicable to the present respondents if they had opted for the same. But it was stated before the trial Court that no such option was called for or exercised by the present respondents. In this state of facts the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions contained in Article 182 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962 read with the provision of Article 2 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958 as promulgated on 10th of October 1958, the terms and conditions of the Civil Servants could not be varied to his disadvantage. The suit was accordingly decreed and it was held that the appellants were entitled to continue to draw the conveyance allowance, rent free house or the House Rent Allowance in lieu thereof as admissible under rules 10.75 and 10.76 of the Punjab Police Rules (Vol. I) 1934 and the orders as to discontinuance of payment were held ultra vires and ineffective. The Govt. Appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 30th March 1964 was rejected by the Addl. District Judge, Montgomery on 17th December 1964. The second appeal filed before High Court was still pending when this Tribunal was constituted and consequently the appeal abated and hence the present appeals before us.
4. ' The learned Government Pleader argued that the pay was the bounty of the State and the suits of the appellant should not have been decreed. It was also argued that the Pay Revision Rules, 1959 impliedly overruled the provisions contained in rules 10.75 and 10.76 of the Punjab Police Rules. We are not inclined to accept any of the contentions above as advanced by the learned Government.
5. Pleader. The issue that the salary was bounty of the State no longer holds good and it has been laid down by the Superior Courts of Pakistan since long that the same is the right of the Civil Servant.
6. We also do not find that the West Pakistan Civil Servants (Non-Gazetted) Pay Revision Rules, 1959 were applicable in the case of the present respondents as it had nowhere been shown that any option was ever called for or exercised in favour of the same by the respondents. We accordingly agree with the conclusions of the civil Courts in this behalf. In view of the above conclusions the arguments advanced by the Government Pleader that the aforesaid Rules impliedly overruled the provisions contained in rule 10.75 and 10.76 of the Police Rules does not arise. Even, otherwise we agree with the finding of the civil Court that such a course was not permissible to the Rule-framing authority in view of the Constitutional bar contained in Article 182 of the Constitution of 1962.
7. ' Consequently, we are not impressed with any of the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader which have no force and all the three appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine.