Ch. MUHAMMAD KHAN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOMPENT AUTHORITY
This petition challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which denied a retired WAPDA employee financial benefits for performing duties of a higher post (Accounts Assistant) from 1962 to 1970. The core legal question was whether a 1991 WAPDA policy decision granting financial benefits for working against higher posts could apply retrospectively to an employee who had already retired by the time the policy was issued. The Supreme Court held that the policy was intended to benefit employees for actual work performed in higher capacities and did not exclude retired personnel. The Court affirmed that executive authorities possess the power to issue beneficial policy decisions with retrospective effect. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the petitioner was entitled to the claimed financial benefits, noting that similar benefits had been granted to other employees in comparable circumstances. The decision establishes that beneficial executive instructions can operate retrospectively to cover periods of service rendered prior to their issuance, provided the policy language does not expressly exclude retired employees.
- Can executive policy decisions granting financial benefits for higher post duties be applied retrospectively to retired employees?
- Does a prior judgment by a Labour Court regarding a service claim necessarily foreclose a subsequent claim based on a later, distinct policy decision?
- Are retired employees excluded from beneficial policy decisions issued by WAPDA unless explicitly stated otherwise?
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---This petition is directed against order, dated 1-5-2000, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Appeal No, 738 of 1995.
2. The petitioner, a retired employee of a Ministerial cadre, performed the duties of the higher post of Accounts Assistant from 4-1-1962 to 2-11-1970. He was, however, promoted as Assistant Accountant with retrospective effect from 25-2-1969. His claim for.. Financial benefits for the higher post of Accounts Assistant was not acceded by the departmental authorities. The petitioner preferred Appeal No,738 of 1995 before the Tribunal which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 1-5-2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was entitled to the financial benefits for the higher post of Accounts Assistant for the period he had performed' the duties of the said post in terms of policy decision, dated 30-11-1991 of the respondent No,
1. It was further pointed out that in some other similar cases such benefits had been given by the respondents.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had already retired from service on 31-12-1989. He was, therefore, not entitled to claim any benefit under the policy decision, dated 30-11-1991. It was further contended that the executive instructions issued by the WAPDA could not operate retrospectively to the benefit of employees who already stood retired from service.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. By policy decision, dated 30-11-1991, the respondent No,1 allowed financial benefits to an individual for the period he actually worked against the higher post (underlining is ours). It is quite clear that the said policy decision was intended to extend financial benefits to the WAPDA employees for the period they had actually worked against the higher post. The retired employees of WAPDA were not excluded from the purview of the aforesaid policy decision. It is well-settled that, in appropriate cases, the executive authorities are empowered to issue instructions or take policy decision retrospectively which are beneficial in nature. Reference may usefully be made to the case of Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd.
And others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/O Finance, Islamabad and 6 others (PLD 1997 SC 582). The Tribunal took an erroneous view of the matter that the earlier judgment, dated 10-11-1977, passed by the Punjab Labour Court, declining the relief to the petitioner had foreclosed the matter. In the present case the petitioner preferred his claim on the basis of instructions, dated 10-11-1991 issued by WAPDA. In some other similar cases, financial benefits to the officials, who were otherwise junior to the petitioner, were granted for the period they had worked.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment, dated 1-5-2000 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the financial benefits for the higher post of Accounts Assistant.