' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.351 to 399 of 2002 alongwith C.M.As. Nos.1034 to 1037 of 2002 and 1248 to 1249 of 2002 as all of them arise from the same judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and questions of law and facts are identical.
2. The respondents were recipient of Secretariat Allowance which was subsequently converted into Personal Allowance before their retirement. The Personal Allowance was continued even after the amendment made in section 38-C of Civil Service Regulations upto 23-5-1996 from which date, this allowance was discontinued. This question came up for determination before this Court in the case of Asghar Mahmood v. Military Accountant General (Civil Appeal Nos.1298 of 1995 etc.) in which, it was held that all those civil servants who had retired from 16-6-1994 to 23-5-1996 would be granted pensionary emoluments after adding the personal allowance.
3. The respondents approached the department concerned for allowing them the said benefit as they had retried from service during the period 16-6-1994 to 23-5-1996 but the same was declined.
They filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal which were also dismissed on 31-8-2000, against which civil petitions were filed before this Court which were accepted on 20-2-2001 and the cases were remitted to the competent authority for re-consideration of the cases of the respondents in the light of the principle laid down in the case of Asghar Mahmood (supra).
4. Before the competent authority took up the matter, an Ordinance was promulgated on 30-3- 2000, according to section 2 whereof any Office Memorandum etc. Issued by the Federal Government for the payment of Personal Allowance/Secretariat Allowance was deemed to have been rescinded with effect from 1-7-1988 with the clarification that no financial benefit whatsoever would accrue on the basis of these allowances except as provided in subsection (2) of the said section. Subsection (2) of the said Ordinance reads as under:- "(2) any order made, instruction issued, decision of any Court including a High Court or the Supreme Court implemented immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been validly made issued and implemented and the amount of Secretariat Allowance including Personal Allowance already paid thereunder shall be deemed to have been validly paid and shall not be recoverable from the recipients of such allowances".
5. This Ordinance however, has also made a provision for passing order based on equity and to do complete justice irrespective of the fact that the said Ordinance was made retrospective in its application. Section 3 is reproduced below:-- "3. Removal of difficulties.---If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Ordinance, the Federal Government may make such order as it may deem just and equitable to provide recompense for the benefit of the Federal Government Servants who were recipient of the Secretariat Allowance or the Personal Allowance".
6. The competent authority ignoring this provision and keeping in view only section 2 thereof declined to grant pensionary emoluments by adding the amounts of personal allowance which they were drawing during their service.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal which have been accepted vide impugned judgment dated 9-1-2002 against which leave is sought.
8. The Federal Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondents had been discriminated under section 3 of the Ordinance. The power was still vested with the competent authority to grant relief to such persons who were entitled to the relief on the basis of justice and equity. Some of the respondents who are present today have brought to our notice that in spite of the promulgation of the said Ordinance, the Federal Government took decision on 4th September, 2001 embodied in the Office Memorandum No,F-1(5) Imp/2001, Item 3 of which is as under:--
3. "Discontinuation of allowances.---The following allowances shall cease to be payable on introduction of the revised pay scale w.e .f. 1-2-2001.
(ii) Secretariat/Personal Allowance".
9. Mr. Ali Sher, Section Officer of the Finance Division, who is present today in the Court with record when questioned, verified the correctness of this Office Memorandum. It is clear that even after the promulgation of the Ordinance, the Federal Government had allowed the Secretariat/Personal Allowance upto 1-12-2001. The Section Officer, when further questioned, admitted that since in the Revised Pay Scale, the pay was fixed in the said Scales of all the civil servants after adding the amount of Secretariat/Personal Allowance, therefore the payment of the same as separate entity was discontinued. The respondents have brought to our notice that from April, 2000 to November, 2001, an amount of Rs,102,360,343 was paid in the accounts. Of the Personal/Secretariat Allowances.
10. We are not required in this case to go into the vires of the Ordinance on the touchstone of fundamental rights of equality before law as envisaged by Article 25 of .The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as the case has been rightly decided by the Federal Service 'Tribunal in the light of section 3 of the Ordinance itself as it was found that the other civil servants had been continuously paid the Secretariat/Personal Allowances up to 1-12-2001 and the allowances already paid to the other civil servants under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Ordinance were also saved.
It was rightly held that the respondents' case was also covered by section 3 and the refusal of the competent authority to grant them allowance under the said section, in view of principle of equity and justice, was a treatment which was highly discriminatory which could not be held to be just and proper on any judicial principle.
11. We find that the reasons given by the Federal Service Tribunal are perfectly in accordance with law and no exception can be taken thereto.
12. C.M.As. Nos.1034 to 1037 of 2002 and 1248 to 1249 of 2002 have been moved for impleading the applicants as party in these petitions which are allowed. They are also found entitled to the same benefit.
13. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.