MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.--- The petitioners are employees of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and are categorized as cabin crew, being flight pursers. They feel aggrieved of Regulations 25 of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulation, 1985. According to this Regulations all employees other than air hostess shall retire from service of the Corporation on completion of the 60 years of age. However, an air hostess shall retire from service on completion of 45 years of her age. The writ petition was admitted to hearing on 29.4.1.999 and notice was issued. Learned Federal counsel and learned counsel for the respondents have put in appearance.
2. It is being contended on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel present that the said Regulation is violative of the provisions of Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution which guaranteed the citizens of the country equal terms before law and protect them from discrimination on the ground of sex alone. According to the learned counsel apart from air hostess there are male persons also included in the cabinet crew, however, they have not been subjected to earlier retirement age. Reference is being made to the case of Sherin Dokhat v. Government of Pakistan (1995 PLC (CS) 251) whereby a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh at Karachi has declared this very Regulation to be void being ultra vires of the Constitution. It is further stated and not denied by the learned counsel for the respondents that an appeal filed against the said judgment in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was withdrawn. Learned counsel for the respondents has not much to say to oppose prayer made in this writ petition. a. I have examined the file. I have already noted above that this case was admitted to hearing on 29.4.1999 and notices were issued. The power-of attorney was filed for respondents on 19.6.1999. No written statement has been filed till date. I called upon learned counsel as to whether he can state any rational behind the said differentia inter se male and female cabin staff. Learned counsel is not able to state any differentia whatsoever whether understandable or not. The Hon'ble learned Judges of Sindh High Court have relied upon the case of Inamur Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan (1992 SCMR 563) wherein it has been laid down that the presumption in favour of the Constitutionality of legislative enactment stands displaced when on the face of Statute no classification is at all and no visible differentia is there, with reference to the object of enactment as regard the person or persons subject to its provision. On the face of said Regulation no classification and no visible differentia is apparent as to why air hostess will retire at the age of 45 while her male colleague doing the same job in the cabin retire upon attaining of age of 60 years. It is but evident that the petitioners have been discriminated against in the matter of length of their service for the sole reason that they are females. The said Regulation is, therefore, violative of Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of country and cannot be sustained. I, therefore, find myself persuaded by judgment of the learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court at Karachi in the case of "Sherin Dokhat" to hold accordingly. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and impugned Regulation inasmuch as it declares that the petitioners ladies are to retire upon attaining age of 45 y ears unlike their male colleagues who are to retire upon attaining age of 60 years is declared to be without lawful authority and void. The petitioners accordingly shall be treated apart within the matter of length of their service as similarly placed male employees. No order as to costs. .