IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 2944 OF 2019 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 24.04.2019 
passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in 
Writ Petition No. 3805/2012) 
 
Abdul Rehman and others 
 
… Petitioners 
Versus 
Secretary, Ministry of Communication etc 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
N.R.  
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
18.08.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under 
Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the 
petitioners have called in question the judgment dated 24.04.2019 passed 
by the learned Islamabad High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by 
the petitioners, praying that they may be treated at par with the other 
regular employees of the respondent department and given special 
allowances, was dismissed.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the petitioners 
performed their duties in the National Highways and Motorways Police 
(NH&MP) as deputationists on different posts at different intervals. Beside 
other allowances, an allowance equal to one month’s pay was admissible 
to the regular employees of the NH&MP but the petitioners were deprived 
of the said allowance. In June, 2001, the fixed daily allowance for those 
Civil Petition No. 2944/2019 
-: 2 :-
performing operational duties was revised/enhanced but the petitioners 
were again not given the relief. Although, with effect from 1st of July, 2004, 
the daily allowance of the petitioners was increased but the petitioners 
wanted the same to be made applicable from back date i.e. June 2001. 
This led to their filing of Writ Petition Nos. 1989/2007 & 1446/2008 before 
the Islamabad High Court, which were disposed of on 22.07.2008 & 
06.04.2009 with the direction that the petitioners shall file a 
representation and the respondents will dispose it of in accordance with 
law. When this could not be done, the petitioners filed Criminal Original 
Nos. 39-W & 40-W/2012 before the Islamabad High Court wherein a 
direction was issued to the respondents to record the submissions of the 
petitioners and pass a speaking order on their representation. However, 
ultimately the request of the petitioners was turned down by the 
respondent No. 2 i.e. Ministry of Finance vide order dated 30.04.2012. 
Being dissatisfied with the decision of the representation, the petitioners 
filed Writ Petition No. 3805/2012 before the Islamabad High Court but the 
same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.04.2019. Hence, 
this petition seeking leave to appeal.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that vide 
order dated 13.10.1997, the Prime Minister had accorded approval to a 
summary whereby the employees of the newly created National Highway 
and Motorways Police were given special allowance equal to one extra pay 
on a monthly basis but the Ministry of Finance while rejecting the 
representation of the petitioners vide order dated 30.04.2012 did not take 
into consideration this aspect of the matter. He contended that this 
deviation is not only unlawful but is ultra vires the Constitution. Contends 
that there is no distinction between the regular and deputationist 
employees and both these categories cannot be treated differently. Lastly 
contends that the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is 
against the well settled principles of law, therefore, the same may be set 
at naught.   
Civil Petition No. 2944/2019 
-: 3 :-
4. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some 
length and have perused the record with his able assistance.  
 
 
It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are not the regular 
employees of the National Highway & Motorways Police and they only 
served as deputationists on different posts at different intervals. So far as 
the officials transferred to National Highway and Motorway Police on 
deputation basis are concerned, their terms and conditions have been 
settled vide office memorandum dated 05.08.1997. On our specific query, 
learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that at the time of their 
deputation, the petitioners were duly informed about the terms and 
conditions of service being deputationist but they never raised any 
objection at that time. Although in the said office memorandum, the 
officials on deputation have been held entitled to several allowances but it 
is nowhere mentioned that the special allowance of one month’s pay will 
also be admissible to them. The learned High Court has rightly observed 
that both the categories of regular and deputationist employees are 
distinct and the petitioners do not enjoy the status of regular employees. 
The main stay of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners was 
in the order dated 13.10.1997 passed by the Prime Minister wherein he 
had accorded approval of one extra pay on a monthly basis to the officials 
of motorway police but he failed to take notice of the fact that the same 
was meant for regular employees only, whose terms and conditions are 
governed under separate package. Even otherwise, we have noticed that 
the order dated 30.04.2012 of the Ministry of Finance clearly mentions 
that in a summary dated 09.05.2008 submitted by Ministry of 
Communications, the Prime Minister had not approved the demand of the 
petitioners for payment of special allowance equivalent to regular 
employees of Motorway Police because they are already enjoying extra 
benefits such as (i) one step promotion as compared to their parent 
department, (ii) deputation allowance @ 20% and (iii) special allowance @ 
20% of the basic pay. We have been informed that the petitioners have 
been reverted back to their parent department long ago and they are now 
performing duties in their parent department. Learned counsel for the 
Civil Petition No. 2944/2019 
-: 4 :-
petitioners could not point out any reason on the basis of which such extra 
burden on public exchequer could be justified when already the 
petitioners were enjoying extra benefits as compared to regular 
employees. Neither any legal right was available with the petitioners to 
claim such benefits nor the question of infringement of any vested right of 
the petitioners had arisen. In these circumstances, no case for interference 
is made out. The impugned judgment is well reasoned, proceeds on 
correct principles of law on the subject and does not require any 
interference by this Court. This petition having no merit is accordingly 
dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.  
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
18th of August, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
