GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Finance vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'S EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LAHORE and 12 others

' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Government of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal against an interim order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent employees of the Punjab Public Service Commission were held entitled to allowance w.e.f, 1-7-1988 per Provincial Governor's Notification, dated 8-8-1988 during the pendency of their writ petitions.

1. Facts leading to this petition are that the Governor of the Punjab allowed Secretariat Allowance at the rate of 20% of the basic pay to all employees of the Provincial Government Secretariat, Governor's Secretariat, Chief Minister's Secretariat and Provincial Assembly Secretariat. The employees of the Lahore High Court claimed benefit of the said notification on the pleas inter alia that they performed similar and more onerous functions and were entitled to equal treatment and protection of law. Their writ petition was accepted by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 7-11-1989. The petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal failed on 5-5-1991. However, it was granted leave to appeal by this Court as questions of law were involved but as regards its prayer to suspend the operation of the order of the High Court, the same was rejected on the ground that if the appeal were to succeed recovery could be easily made from the salary of the employees but if they were deprived the allowance they would suffer irreparable loss, as they would obviously be needing the money to meet day to day' expenses. This is vide order, dated 27-5-1991.

2. When the respondents' writ petition for the same relief as granted to the employees of the High Court came up for hearing before the learned Lahore High Court these were admitted for regular hearing and consistent with its previous decision and relying on the interim order of this Court, they were granted interim relief pending the final adjudication vide order, dated 6-11-1991. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal.

3. In the case in hand, the respondents were allowed interim relief of allowance pending adjudication of their writ petitions. The allowance was to meet the rising costs of living. If they were to be denied the relief they would be finding difficult to meet the rising expenses, say of paying fees for their children. Obviously they would suffer irreparable loss. If on the other hand, they were to lose their writ petitions ultimately it would not be difficult for the petitioner rather easy to recover the amount from the salaries of the respondents. Clearly the balance of convenience was in favour of the respondents. In these circumstances, consistently with the previous judgment of the High Court and relying on the order of this Court if the learned Judge has passed the impugned order it calls for no interference. It is only an interim order and such orders are not normally interfered with by this Court. There are no extraordinary grounds to depart from the normal rule. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may seek from the High Court early disposal of the writ petitions.