' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide Writ Petition Nos.2657 of 1994, Writ Petition 18278 of 2000, Writ Petition 10090 of 1995, Writ Petition 2340 of 1994, Writ Petition 3581 of 1994, Writ Petition 3446 of 1994 and Writ Petition 3548 of 1994 as common questions are involved.
2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are employees of various Federal Government Departments. They filed above noted writ petitions to claim Secretariat Allowance being paid to the employees serving in Federal Secretariats and Civil Secretariat. The writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and vide judgments dated 30-9-1999 and 7-2-2000 passed in Writ Petition No,2621 of 1994, all the writ petitions alongwith several other writ petitions were dismissed.
The petitioners feeling aggrieved filed C.Ps.Nos.1087-L, 1088-L, 1338-L, 1624-L, 1741-L, 1743-L and 1945- L of 2000. These C.Ps. Came up on 25-10-2000 when the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan remanded these case back to this Court to examine the matter with reference to provisions of Secretariat. Allowance (Rescission Orders etc.) Ordinance, 2000.
3. Dr. A. Basit Advocate, led the arguments for the petitioners in all these cases supported by the, learned counsel in other cases. With reference to the case of Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Nasir v.
Secretary Finance Division Islamabad (1997 SCM R 1026), it was argued that petitioners in these cases had been granted interim relief in the form of direction issued to the respondent- departments for the payment of Secretariat Allowance. The precise contention is that since the Court had directed the payment of allowance by way of interim measure, the petitioners would be entitled to the payment of the same w,e,f,, 1-7-1988 to 31-5-1994 i,e, terminus quo set in the said judgment. According to the learned counsel, the said Ordinance 12 of 2000 shall not be affecting the direction of the Court issues by way of interim relief.
4. Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, learned Dy. A:-G. For Pakistan, on the other hand contends that the provisions of the said Ordinance are absolutely unambiguous as to the intents and effect thereof and petitioners would not be entitled to claim the said relief. Supports his arguments with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23-1-2001 in the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Gul Alam Khan and others (C.As. 1575 of 1998 to 1582 of 1998).
5. We have examined the matter in the light of direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Section 2 of the said Secretariat Allowance (Rescission Orders etc.) Ordinance, 2000 is reproduced hereunder:-- "2.: Rescission of certain order.---(1) The orders, office memorandums, instructions and other instruments whereby the Secretariat Allowance was granted to certain Federal Government Employees in the Federal Secretariat, President's Secretariat, Prime Minister's Secretariat, National Assembly Secretariat, the Senate Secretariat and other Organizations of the Federal Government and orders, office memorandum, instructions and other instructions and other instruments amending the aforesaid orders office memorandums, instructions and others instruments, hereinafter referred to as the orders, converting the Secretariat Allowance into Personal Allowance are hereby rescinded and shall be deemed always to have been so rescinded on the 1st July, 1988, and no financial benefit whatsoever, save and except as provided in subsection (2) shall accrue or deemed to have accrued to become payable thereunder, to the person employed in the aforesaid Secretariats and others Organizations of the Federal Government notwithstanding any decision of any Court including a High Court and the Supreme Court.
(2) Any order made, instructions 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."
The plain reading of the said provisions of law would show that all orders, office memorandums, instructions and other instruments whereby the Secretairat Allowance was granted to certain Federal Government Employees in the Federal Secretariat, President's Secretairat, Prime Minister's Secretariat, National Assembly Secretariat, the Senate Secretariat and other organizations of the Federal Government including the instruments amending the said documents stand rescinded w,e,f, 1-7-1988. Now the effect of the said provisions of law is that the persons employed in the said Secretariats and Organizations shall not get any benefit under the said instruments except as saved in subsection (2) of the said section 2. Now the result is that very basis for the several judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as all High Courts of the Provinces i,e, discrimination vis-a-vis the persons to whom the said instruments applied and others like the petitioner is gone.
6. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel. This is with reference to subsection (2) of said section 2, which, inter alia, saves decision of a High Court or Supreme Court "implemented" immediately before the commencement the said Ordinance. With the result that the amount of Secretariat Allowance paid, in implementation of such a decision shall be deemed to be validity paid and shall not be recovered from the person to whom the same had been paid in implementation of the said judgment. Learned counsel contends that the terms "decision" would not include an interim order for the payment of Secretariat Allowance and as such the implementation of the interim order as against implementation of a decision (which of course is final decision) can still be insisted upon. With respect, we find the argument to be preposterous.
The Ordinance has effectively done away with the decisions which have not been implemented, to our mind, this includes, interim decision as well. In any event matter has been set at rest in the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being relied upon by learned Deputy Attorney-General. We may reproduce the following excerpts from para. 7 of the said judgment:-- "In case the Secretariat Allowance payable under the impugned judgments has not been paid, the private respondents will not be entitled to receive the same in view of above Ordinance".
' The term Ordinance refers to said Ordinance 12 of 2000 mentioned in the earlier part of Para. 7 of the said judgment.
7. In view of the above discussion, we find that the respondents are not liable to pay the Secretairat Allowance being claimed by the petitioners in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed.
No orders as to costs.