IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1989 OF 2019 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 11.10.2018 
passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in 
Appeal No. 407(L)CS/2016) 
 
Secretary (M-V) Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
 
Zeenat Bangash and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. M.D. Shahzad Feroz, ASC 
 
 
For the Respondent (1): 
In person 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
29.04.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this appeal by 
leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the appellant has assailed the judgment 
dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, 
whereby the Service Appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was accepted 
and he was held entitled to deputation allowance.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
respondent No. 1 being officer of Postal Group remained working in 
Federal Board of Revenue on deputation from the year 1994 to 2001 but 
he was not given deputation allowance. After his repatriation to his 
parent department, he on 27.11.2012 approached the Federal Board of 
Revenue for grant of deputation allowance on the basis of judgment of 
the Federal Service Tribunal, which was upheld by this Court and also 
on the basis of discrimination that the same was extended to other 
employees with similar circumstances. However, the request of the 
respondent was turned down by the department vide order dated 
12.05.2015 on the ground that pursuant to Office Memorandum No. 
F3(8)R.2/2007 dated 01.07.2007 deputation allowance is only 
admissible to fresh cases and it is not meant for old cases, therefore, it 
Civil Appeal No. 1989/2019 
-: 2 :-
could not be given retrospective effect. The respondent then filed appeal 
before the Appellate Authority i.e. Secretary Finance Division, which 
was referred to the Establishment Division vide letter dated 01.02.2016 
but it was never decided. The respondent, thereafter, filed appeal before 
the Federal Service Tribunal, which has been allowed vide impugned 
judgment. Hence, this appeal with leave of the Court.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that 
the respondent was repatriated to his parent department in the year 
2001 and he filed departmental appeal on 08.06.2015 which was 
clearly barred by limitation; that the office memorandum of 2007 clearly 
states that deputation allowance is admissible to only fresh cases and it 
has no retrospective effect.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, the respondent No. 1, who appeared in 
person defended the impugned judgment by stating that several of his 
colleagues were granted deputation allowance whereas he was ignored, 
which act is grossly arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and against the principle 
of natural justice.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and 
respondent in person and have gone through the available record.  
6. 
 
We have noted that vide Office Memorandum dated 
02.04.1999 the deputation allowance was made admissible only to the 
cases of foreign service of Pakistan and the cases of other 
deputationists of ministries, divisions etc were excluded. However, 
pursuant to a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal passed in 
Appeal Nos. 39 & 40(R)CS/2003, which was upheld by this Court vide 
order dated 21.09.2005 passed in Civil Petition Nos. 519 & 524/2004, 
all officers/officials of ministries, divisions etc, who have been 
transferred and posted on deputation basis were held entitled to 
deputation allowance vide Office Memorandum No. F.5(8)R-2/2007 
dated 04.07.2007. Therefore, the only question which remains to be 
clarified is whether the said office memorandum has retrospective effect 
or is it only meant for “fresh cases”. The learned Service Tribunal took 
into consideration the Office Memorandum dated 02.04.1999 which was 
further elaborated by Office Memorandum dated 04.07.2007 and while 
observing that according to paragraph ‘ii’ of the Office Memorandum 
dated 04.07.2007, the old cases of transfers/postings on deputation 
basis were granted deputation allowance held that “there is no denying 
the fact that on the basis of O.M. of the Finance Division dated 4th of 
Civil Appeal No. 1989/2019 
-: 3 :-
July, 2007, deputation allowance was allowed and disbursed to all the 
civil servants either old or fresh and no distinction was made between 
those, inducted in OMG or otherwise. It could not be acceptable even 
otherwise on the touchstone of rule of consistency i.e. that one set of civil 
servants posted on deputation or under Section 10 is allowed 
deputation allowance retrospectively and others are deprived of that”, 
which otherwise would be in defiance of Article 25 of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. When we confronted learned counsel for 
the appellant with this aspect of the matter, he could not give any 
plausible answer. So far as the question raised by learned counsel for 
the appellant that the claim of the respondent was barred by laches as 
he was repatriated to his parent department in the year 2001 and he 
filed departmental appeal on 08.06.2015 is concerned, suffice it is to 
state that being a financial matter, limitation will not have any adverse 
implication on respondent’s claim.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we are of the candid 
view that the learned Service Tribunal has passed a well reasoned 
judgment to which no exception can be taken. This appeal having no 
merit is accordingly dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
   
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
29th of April, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram