INAAM ELAHI NASIR and others vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others

' MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.--- Since question of law and facts involved in all the three captioned petitions are one and the same, therefore, are being decided through this single Judgment.

2. Mr. Inaam Elahi Nasir, Senior Vice President (Rtd.) of NBPrespondent along with nine others through Writ Petition No, 764 of 2007 sought following relief:---

(I) Ad hoc relief with effect from 1-1-1998 to the date when the petitioners were relieved from the Bank service and also revise six months leave encashment;

(II) Direction may be issued for re-calculation of the golden shake hand benefits w,e,f, 1-1-1998 after including ad hoc relief in the pensionary emoluments and arrears of the same may also be paid to the petitioners;

(III) Profit/mark up at the then prevailing Bank rate on all the above amounts w,e,f, the date of relieving of the petitioners till the actual payment;

(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate, may also be awarded.

3. In Writ Petition No, 1884 of 2009 Waheed Ahmad Dar, Ex-Grade II officer of respondent Bank prays that the respondents may kindly be directed to give the petitioners benefits i,e, pension able pay etc. By calculating pension and its commutation as detailed in Para 6 of the writ petition in accordance with Circular dated 27-2-1998 (Annex-B) and to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its various judgments relating to issue involved in the present writ petition.

4. Likewise, 39 ex-employees of respondent-Bank through Petition No,1885 of 2009 also sought similar relief which is as under:---

(I) Ad hoc relief with effect from 1-1-1998 to the date when the petitioners were relieved from the Bank Service and also to revise six months leave encashment;

(II) Direction may be issued for re-calculation of the golden shake hand benefits w,e,f, 1-1-1998 after including ad hoc relief in the pensionary emoluments and arrears of the same may also be paid to the petitioners;

(III) All other benefits of bonuses-increase as admissible to other regular employees up to the date of relieving may also be granted to the petitioners with all back-benefits/arrears;

(IV) Profit/mark up at the then prevailing Bank rate on all the above amounts w,e,f, the date of relieving of the petitioners till the actual payment;

(V) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate may also be awarded.

5. So the petitioners (ex-employees of NBP) have called in question the Golden Hand Shake Scheme whereunder they were relieved from their services.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon case-laws Khyber Zaman v. Government State Bank of Pakistan PLD 2003 SC 839, 1996 SCMR 1185, 71 and 82, 2003 PLC (C.S.)796 and judgment in case of "Qazi Muhammad Akhtar v. NBP (Writ Petition No,1850 of 2007).

7. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent raised objection upon the maintainability of the petitions for want of territorial jurisdiction as the respondent No,1 is located at Karachi. On facts, it is contended that a similar petition filed by other employees of the respondent Bank before the Hon'ble Sindh High Court was accepted. Said order was challaned by the Bank and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as National Bank of Pakistan through Chairman v. Nasim Arif Abbas and others (2001 SCMR 446) considered and evaluated the cited Judgments including Khyber Zaman's case and it was held therein that respondents (ex-employees) were paid emoluments in full for the period they worked after they had opted for retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme and had received retirement benefits accordingly. It was also held that no case having been made out by the respondents (ex-employees), therefore, judgments passed by the High Court were set aside and the appeal of the Bank-respondent was allowed.

8. Keeping this milieu of the case in hand, I have gone through the record including the objection with regard to the maintainability of the instant petition.

9. Article 199 of the Constitution says that subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order directing a person performing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do.

10. It is very much clear that the respondent-Bank is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court i,e, at Karachi whereas all the petitioners except one were in service in different cities of Punjab, therefore, this Court has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

11. Above all, the Hon'ble apex Court had already expressed view regarding GHS Scheme in case National Bank of Pakistan through Chairman v.. Nasim Arif Abbas and others (2001 SCMR 446) and in presence of this Judgment, there left no need to dilate further upon the instant petitions which are also hit by laches.

12. For guidance and ready reference, Paragraphs 13 to 15 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are reproduced hereunder:--- "13. In the above background, writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Sindh and the Lahore High Court, which were allowed by the impugned. Judgments. But the fact of the matter is that the respondents having exercised the option to retire under the GHS, were deemed to be retired from service on and from the cutoff date. On that score, they could not be treated at par with those employees who had not exercised such an option and were still continuing in service. A reasonable classification in terms of the law laid down by this Court in I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041) did exist between the two categories of employees i,e, those who had exercised the option and those who had not exercised the option. As such, the learned counsel for the respondents failed to point out discrimination prohibited under Article 25 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has rightly contended that at the time of receiving the pensionary benefits worked out under the GHS, none of the respondents had raised the issue of admissibility of the ad hoc relief granted subsequently. Rather, all of them had received the said dues without any objection on that score. Thus, they could not have competently resorted to legal proceedings, either before the Service Tribunal or before the High Court that too after efflux of a long time in many of the cases, for the purpose of getting such ad hoc relief or other emoluments, such as annual increments etc., taken into consideration and getting the retirement benefits calculated. In this view of the matter, no valid grievance could be made on account of the fact that they were actually relied from service on a subsequent date. The fact remains that they were paid emoluments in full for the period they worked after they had opted for retirement under the GHS and had received the retirement benefits accordingly. Thus, on merits, no case .Is made out in favour of the respondents.

14. As regards the question of jurisdiction agitated by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, suffice it to observe that no useful purpose will be served by going into the said question, particularly when leave was granted, not on the question of jurisdiction alone, but also to examine the merits of the case. We have independently considered the merits of the case, and, in our view, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the case either after such a long period.

15. As a result of the above discussion, the titled appeals failed by the National Bank of Pakistan are allowed, the judgments/orders impugned herein are set aside and the parties are left to bear their own costs."

13. In view of above discussion and while placing reliance of the Judgment (ibid) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, all the IE captioned three writ petitions stand dismissed with no orders as to costs.