JUDGMENT NAZAR MOHAMMAD SHAIKH, MEMBER.- Brief facts of the cases are that the appellant joined the respondent-Organization as L.D.C, w.e.f. 7.11.1969 .And rose upto the post of Manager (Grade-ll) w.e.f. 18.12.1993. While appellant was working as Manager (Grade-ll) in the Head Office of the respondent- Organization he applied for premature retirement which was accepted by the respondent w.e.f. 1.11.1999 and issued office order bearing No. 1280. Appellant on receiving the said order found that respondent No. 4 had not included his increment for the year 1999 in his terminal benefits. Consequently, he filed Representation on 26.3.2001 to the respondent No. 2 claiming one increment as the appellant had worked for more than six months in the said year and was retired from service prematurely on 1.11.1999. The Representation was rejected by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the Federal Government's letter dated 8.3.1972 and 8.8.1973 as referred in the Office Memorandum issued by the Finance Division on 29.12.1999 on the basis that the employees of the respondent-Organization do not fall within the definition of Civil Servant and that the instructions regarding six months' condition was applicable to the Civil Servants only. Appellant was thus obliged to file this appeal before the Tribunal in terms of Section 4 read with Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act of%1973/2000.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued the appeal and stated that the appellant had rendered 10 months' service in the year 1999 and, as such, entitled to increment which would have accrued to him on 1.1.2000. He further argued that Regulation No.- 4 of House Buildings Finance Service Regulations of 1957 clearly stipulated that in all matters which were not provided in these Regulations the rules applicable to Government servants under the rule making power of the President shall apply to the employees of the House Buildings Finance Corporation and as such appellant was entitled to the increment falling on 1,1.2000 and it should be counted towards computing his retirement benefits. He also referred to the Regulation No. 13 of the respondent-Organization's Service Regulations wherein it is provided that the retirement rules of the Central Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to employees of . The respondent- Organization. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant cited rulings reported in PLJ 2001 Tribunal Cases 166 and 1996 PLC (CS) 537. He also pointed out that the Federal Government had allowed counting of service of more than six months while calculating the preliminary benefits and had issued O.M. Dated 18.9.1999 in the light of FST's Judgment in Appeal No. 275(R)/1998 in the case of Muhammad Yousuf v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and stated that the appeal was hit by limitation as the appellant had received the pensionary payment order bearing No. 1280 on 3.11.1999 and cheque in respect of his pensionary benefits. She stated that against this order he represented as late as 26.3.2002 which is badly time-barred. She further stated that the grant of annual increments in respect of employees of House Buildings Finance Corporation was governed under Section 17 of H. B.F.C's. Service Regulations of 195? And as such the Rules applicable to Civil Servants cannot be stretched and applied to the employees of the respondent- organization as he did not fall within the category of Civil Servants. She also denied the contention of the appellant's counsel that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act of 1973 made the appellant Civil Servant in all respect and that the scope of Section 2-A was limited to the extent of service benefits and did not include all the matters in relation to the appellant.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel from both sides and also perused the record and citations. The appellant contends that since he had rendered 10 months service in the year 1999 he was entitled to increment for calculation of pensionary benefits and has placed reliance on Finance Division's O.M. Dated 8.9.1998 which reads as under:- Government of Pakistan Finance Division (Regulation Wing)
No. F. 3(ZO)R-Z/98 Islamabad, the 8th September, 1998.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: GRANT OF USUAL INCREMENT IN THE YEAR OF RETIREMENT.
The undersigned is directed to refer in this Division's Circular No. E(Z)-NG-lmp., dated 8th March, 1972 and convey that sub-para, (d) of Part-1 of the said circular, may be amended to read as follows:- "The annual increment in the Basic Scale of Pay will accrue only on 1st day of the month of December following the completion of at least six months of such service at the relevant stage in that scale as counts for increment under the ordinary rules; provided that:-
(a) A retiring Civil Servant shall be entitled to the usual annual increment, for the purpose of calculation of his pension only, on completion of six months service in the year of his retirement, irrespective of due date of 1st December following the completion of six months;
(b) The rules regarding withholding of increments and crossing of Efficiency Bar shall not be affected by this decision.
2. In view of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST)'s judgment in appeal No. 275(R) of . 1998 (Mr. Muhammad Yusuf v. Divisional Supdt. Of Pakistan Railways) the above amendment shall be effective from the calendar year 1998.
Sd/- (IFTIKHAR AHMAD)
SECTION OFFICER".
The record also indicates that the Finance Division issued yet another clarification on 29.12.1999 through an OM which provided that Civil Servants retiring during the period' on and from 1st of June and 1st of December of a year are entitled to the usual annual increment. The perusal of the Regulations Nos. 4 and 13 of the H.B.F.C's. Rules very clearly stipulates that Government rules shall be applicable in matters where there are no Regulations of the respondent- organization.
Regulations 4 and 13 are reproduced below:- "4. Government Servants' Rule to apply in < matters not provided in the Regulations.- In all matters not provided for in these Regulations, the rules applicable to Government Servants under the rule making powers of the President shall apply to employees (and the Managing Director shall, in relation to the employees, exercise all such powers under those rules as have been delegated to various administrative Ministries as well as the Heads of Departments of the Central Government in relation to Government Servants): Provided that no financial benefits under such rules shall be admissible to an employee I unless specifically sanctioned by the Board."
(13. Retirement - The rules relating to the retirement of the servants of the Central Government shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the employees of the Corporation.)"
5. The respondents on the other hand contended that the Regulation No. 17 was applicable to the employees of the respondent-corporation. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that there were no Rues and as far as allowing of increment to those employees who had completed six months in a given financial year. That being so the' position becomes absolutely clear that in absence of H.B.F.C. Regulations the Government Regulations on the subject indicated in Finance Division's OMs dated 8.9.1998 and 29.12.1999 reproduced earlier shall be applicable here and the appellant is, thus, entitled to one increment on his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.11.1999 as he had on that date rendered more than six months' service.
6. In view of the above facts, the appeal is accepted. The respondents are directed to recalculate the appellant's pensionary benefits by adding one increment for having rendered more than six months service in the year 1999. No orders as to cost.
7. Parties be informed accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.