FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs GHULAM MUSTAFA and others

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---The listed petitions have been filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for leave to appeal against judgment dated 5- 1-2012, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad; relevant paras, therefrom are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "2. The issue has been resolved in that judgment. However, the objection of the respondents is that in the said appeals Finance Division was not a party. Today we have heard the Finance Division also. Two persons namely Mr. A.A. Zuberi and Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi had filed Writ Petition in the High Court and had succeeded in getting increase on the commuted pension. Their appeals in the Humble Supreme Court were dismissed as time barred. It means that the judgment of the High Court had attained finality. The two pensioners were granted increase on the commuted pension. Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees equal treatment to all. When two pensioners had been granted increase it shall have to be granted to other pensioners also. Thus the judgment of the Tribunal, mentioned above, has relevance when read in the light of the judgment of the High Court. Relevant part of the judgment of the Tribunal is as under:- "9. In the light of judgments of the Lahore High Court confirmed by the apex Court and the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal we accept the appeals. The respondents are directed to determine the pension of the appellants from the date of restoration of their commuted pension at the rate at which they were drawing 50% remaining pension. The arrears shall also be paid to them. It is also clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim arrears for the period prior to restoration of their commuted pension."

3. In the above circumstances, we find that present cases are similar to the one decided by the Tribunal on the strength of the judgment of the High Court, confirmed by the Humble Supreme Court. We accordingly hold that appellants are entitled to increase in their commuted pension in the same manner. Appeals are allowed."

2. When we have inquired from the learned counsel as to whether in view of the principles laid down by this Court under Article 25 of the Constitution as to why the respondents should not be treated at par with the employees named in the above para for the purposes of getting relief, he could not answer satisfactorily except saying that in another judgment announced by this Court in "Akram ul Haq Alvi v. Joint Secretary (R-II), Government of Pakistan, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (Civil Appeal No,254-L of 2011)", it has been held that the petitioners shall not be entitled for increase on the commuted pension. We failed to understand the distinction, which the learned counsel wanted to create in view of the judgment relied upon.

3. After hearing the learned counsel and having gone through the operative paras of the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that as far as the respondents are concerned, they have to be treated at par with the employees in whose favor decision has been taken by the High Court as well as by this Court. Therefore, in absence of any reasonable classification, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment.

4. Additionally, no question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been pointed out.

5. Accordingly, the listed petitions are dismissed and leave refused.