PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through D.S., Lahore and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the withdrawal of big city allowance to the respondents, who are employees of Pakistan Railways. The respondents' headquarters were shifted to Gujranwala, making them initially entitled to the big city allowance, which was subsequently withdrawn. The core legal question was whether railway employees whose headquarters are located within the municipal limits of Gujranwala are entitled to the big city allowance under the relevant rules and policies. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents' headquarters were indeed shifted within the municipal limits of Gujranwala and no policy or instruction disentitled them, the High Court correctly repelled the appellants' contention. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as no substantial question of law of public importance was involved, thereby affirming the entitlement of the employees to the allowance.
- Whether railway employees are entitled to big city allowance upon the shifting of their headquarters within municipal limits?
- Can an allowance once granted to civil or public servants be withdrawn without valid policy justification?
- When does the Supreme Court interfere with a constitutional judgment passed by the High Court in service matters?
- Para 5.13(a), Ways and Works Manual 1959
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J -----This appeal by the leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment dated 28-11-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in a Constitution petition.
2. The respondents are employed in Pakistan Railways. They were posted in Gang. No,9 with their headquarter at Therri Sansi and on 7-6-1992 their headquarter was shifted to Gujranwala. The respondents having become entitled to big city allowance were paid the said allowance but later vide order dated 14-7-1994, the same was withdrawn from the date of its sanction. The respondents being aggrieved of the order of withdrawal of big city allowance, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter. The appellants in the comments submitted to the writ petition in the High Court pleaded that headquarter of respondents was still Therri Sansi which was out of the territorial limits of Gujranwala Municipal Corporation and they were not entitled to the grant of big city allowance. However, it was admitted that big city allowance was admissible to the Railways employees if their headquarter was situated within the municipal limits of the city. In the present case, an admission was made on behalf of the appellants in the High Court that the headquarter of the respondents was indeed shifted to Gujranwala city but no other change in place of their duty was made, therefore, they would not be entitled to the grant of big city allowance under Para 5.13(a) of Ways and Works Manual 1959.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants without denying the location of the headquarter of the respondents within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala, has urged in the light of the contention raised in the High Court that respondents were not entititled to the big city allowance.
The learned Judge in the High Court repelled the above contention with the observation that no policy or instruction was shown to contend that the big city allowance was not admissible to the respondents.
4. We do not find any substantial question of law of public importance involved in this case for interference and while maintaining the impugned judgment dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.