IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ.
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN.
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR.
CWIL APPEAL NO.756 OF 2021
(Against the judgment dated 25.09.2018 passed
by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in
Appeal No. 1332(R)CS of 2016).
AND
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 11 OF 2021 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.493 OF 2020.
(Against the order dated 04.12.2020 passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No. 493 of 2020)
Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi.
(in CA. 7S6/2021)
Finance Secretary, Finance Division, M/o Finance,
Islamabad.
(in CRP. 11/2021)
.App(s)/Pet(s).
Versus
Muhammad Yasin (decd) through L.Rs. and others.
Respondent(s)
(in both cases)
For the Appellant(s)
For the Petitioner(s)
For the Respondent(s):
Date of Hearing:
Mr. Jawad Mehmood Pasha, ASC.
(via video-link fmm Lahore)
(in CA. 75612021)
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. AGP.
Mr. Sajid Javed, Asstt. (Legal)
Finance Division.
(in CRP. 11/2021)
Asim Yasin.
(son of the respondent).
23.12.2021.
JUDGMENT
IJAZ UL ABSAN, J-. This single judgment shall
decide Civil Appeal No.756 of 2021 (filed by Divisional
Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways) and Civil Review Petition
No.11 of 2021 (filed by the Secretary, Finance Division,
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2021, etc. 
2
Islamabad) as common questions of law and fact are involved
in both matters.
2.
This appeal arises out of a judgment of the Federal
Service Tribunal, Islamabad ("the Tribunal"), dated
25.09.2018. Through the impugned judgment, a Service
Appeal bearing No. 1332(R)CS of 2016 filed by the Respondent
(Muhammad Y asirt) was allowed and it was held that since he
was holding the post in substantive Grade-15 at the time of
his retirement he would be entitled to 25% increase in
pension as per Office Memorandum dated 23.07.1999. The
Appellant was directed to allow medical allowance to the
Respondent @ 25% of his pension with effect from 01.07.2010
and arrears with a direction to complete the process within 30
days.
3.
Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of
this Appeal are that the Respondent was a pensioner of
Pakistan Railways. He joined Pakistan Railways on
05.05.1969. He was allowed move-over to BS-16 with effect
from 01.12.2000. He retired from service on 31.03.2000. It
appears that the Government of Pakistan had announced pay
scales with allowances, vide Office Memorandum dated
05.07.2010. Through the said OM, Medical Allowance was
allowed to the pensioners at the following rates:
1) 
From BS-1 to 15 @25% of the pension and
ii) 
From .BS-1 6 to 22 @20% of the pension.
In view of the fact that the Respondent had been
granted move-over to BS-16, he was allowed medical
I
•1
•1
Cl VAt APPEAL DO. ThU OF 2U2 I, etc. 
3
allowance @ 20% of his pension. The Respondent claimed
that since his substantive grade was BS-15 he was entitled to
medical allowance @ 25% of the pension. His departmental
representation was not responded, in consequence of which,
the Respondent approached the Tribunal which allowed his
Service Appeal, vide impugned judgment dated 25.09.20 18
which is impugned before us through the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the Appellants submits
that the Respondent had drawn last pay in BS-16 and as
such he could not claim medical allowance at the rate which
it was payable to those who were in BS-15. In this regard, he
has drawn our attention to Office Memorandum No.F-16(1)-
Reg.6/2010-778, dated 05.07.2010("OM"). He maintains that
the Tribunal has misconstrued and misinterpreted the clear
and unambiguous language of the said OM. He further
maintains that the Tribunal failed to consider that the
departmental representation as well as the Service Appeal
filed by the Respondent were hopelessly barred by time and
the reasons recorded by the Tribunal for condoning the delay
are unsustainable. He submits that the Respondent had
retired on 31.03.2000, drew pension and allowances on his
last drawn pay and could not claim increase in medical
allowance payable to those who retired in BS-15. He points
out that by claiming the allowance in BS-15 while drawing
pension in BS-16 the Respondent in essence was claiming
two benefits which are not permitted by law. He also argues
that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.756 OF 2021, etc. 
4
was allowed move-over to BS- 16 with effect from 01.12.2000
on account of an option exercised by him and he could not
have retraced his steps to claim an additional benefit of an
increased medical allowance available to those who had
retired in BS-15.
S. Mr. Asim Yasin, son of the Respondent, who has
appeared in person on behalf of his legal heirs has defended
the impugned judgment. He maintains that the substantive
Grade of his predecessor-in-interest at the time of retirement
was BS-15. Therefore, he was entitled to payment of medical
allowance payable to those who had retired in BS-15. He has
also filed written submissions which have been gone through.
6.
We have heard the learned ASC for the Appellants
as well as Respondent's son and carefully gone through the
record. The facts in the case are not disputed by either side
which have been reproduced above. There is no denial of the
fact that the Respondent had opted for move-over to BS-16 in
which he chose to retire and was granted pension on the
basis of last drawn pay of BS-16 and medical allowance
permissible to those in BPS-16. The entire case turns on the
interpretation of OM dated 05.07.2010 which in our opinion
has been misinterpreted and misconstrued by the Tribunal.
7.
It is significant to note that through the aforesaid
OM, medical allowance was payable with effect from
01.07.2010 to all civil pensioners of the Federal Government
' CIVIL APPEAL NO.756 OF 2021, etc.
including civilians paid from Defence Estimate and Civil
Armed Forces at the following rates:
Pensioners who retired in BPS-1 to 15 
25% of
Pension drawn (the underlining is ours).
Pensioners who retired/will retire in BPS-16 to 22
20% pfpçjsion drawn. (the underlining Is ours).
In our opinion, in the first instance, the
Respondent had been granted move-over to BS-16 at his own
option. Further, the rate of medical allowance was to be
calculated on the basis of pension drawn. There is no denial
of the fact that the Respondent drew pension on his last
drawn pay which was in BS-16. Therefore, on a correct
construction and interpretation of the OM, he was entitled to
20% of the pension drawn which is the deciding factor in
determining the amount of medical allowance payable to a
Pensioner. The Tribunal, in our view, did not correctly
interpret the language of the OM and read into the OM
something which was not there. The intent, meaning and
scope of the OM was clear and unambiguous and we are in
no manner of doubt that the medical allowance was payable
on the pension drawn. In view of the fact that the Respondent
admittedly drew pension calculated on the basis of his last
drawn pay which was that of BS-16, he was correctly paid
medical allowance @ 20% of the pension drawn. We also find
substance in the argument of learned counsel for the
Appellants that the Respondent was actually claiming two
benefits. While on the one hand he was drawing pension
calculated on the basis of his last drawn pay in BS-16 and on
the other hand he claimed benefit of a higher rate of medical
i)
Li
• I
CIVIL APPEAL NU756OF2O21,efr
allowance payable to persons retiring in BS-15, which is
contrary to the plain language of the OM. The determining
factor were the words "of pension drawn". The finding of the
Tribunal that the Respondent had retired "substantively in
BS-15" is a terminology unknown to the Service Law or any
legal phraseology. Further, the rate of medical allowance was
to be determined on the basis of pension drawn and no where
does the OM provide for whether or not a pensioner had
retired holding a substantive grade.
8. Further, we find that the Tribunal misconstrued
and misinterpreted the law of limitation and the reasons that
prevailed with the Tribunal in condoning the delay were not
attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
It may be noted that the claim of the Respondent was not
regarding his pension or any pensionary benefit. In fact, he
had approached the Tribunal seeking interpretation of an
Office Memorandum dated 05.07.20 10 in 2016. As such, the
question of limitation was material in view of the fact that the
departmental representation as well as Service Appeal of the
Respondent were patently barred by time. The entire tenor of
the reasoning given by the Tribunal in allowing the Service
Appeal is that the Respondent was holding a post in
substantive Grade-15 which was alien to the considerations
for grant of medical allowance as incorporated in the OM that
was the subject matter of interpretation. Consequently, we
find that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is
CIVIL APPEAL NO.756 OF 2021, etc. 
'A
unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. As a result, the
appeal is allowed.
9. 
CRP No.11 of 2021. For the reasons recorded in
the connected matter (Civil Appeal No. 756 of 2021) which has
been allowed by us, this Review Petition is also disposed of.
I
ISLAMABAD.
23.12.2021.
ZR/ *
Wqt Approved For Eeporting