1998 PLP 2083 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMEED KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMED KHAKWANI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2083 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMED KHAKWANI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2083 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2083 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2083 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMEED KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMED KHAKWANI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Atiq‑ur‑Rahman Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Anwar H. Mir Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Tariq Mahmood, Assistant Educational Adviser for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1996
- Atiq-ur-Rahman Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Anwar H. Mir Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 4‑6‑1995 passed in Appeal No. 74(R) of 1995). Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant‑Termination of service on completion of project for which he was employed‑‑ Service Tribunal while upholding civil servant's termination of service rejected his request for pensionary benefits on the ground that civil servant had put in nine and a half years service while at least 10 years' service would entitle him to such benefits‑‑‑Competent Authority was although empowered to condone such type of gaps, yet civil servant having not made any request to Competent Authority, Service Tribunal could not exercise power of Competent Authority and could adjudicate only, on orders issued by Departmental Authority in terms of S. 4, Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑‑‑Civil servant claimed that he had made representation for pension and gratuity and that in terms of Government instructions, deficiency of six months or less in qualifying service of Government servant for pension would stand condoned and that Service Tribunal had incorrectly interpreted those instructions‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether civil servant was entitled to claim pension as claimed by him.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. By order dated 13-5-1985 issued by the Project Director, NTTTC, the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director (Tech) in the National Technical Teachers Training College, Islamabad. On completion of the project, petitioner's services were transferred to the Project Implementation Cell of Education Project by order dated 28-6-1993. While the petitioner was serving as Deputy Project Director, he was served with a notice for termination of service dated 8-9-1994 informing him that as the competent authority has allowed functioning of the Project Implementation Cell up to 30-9-1994, his services would be terminated on 30-9-1994. The petitioner made representation by letter dated 28-9-1994 in which he, inter alia, requested for re-consideration of his case and for grant of pension and gratuity or he may be absorbed *n an equivalent post under the Federal Government. The petitioner does not seem to have received any reply and he, therefore, filed appeal before the Service Tribunal in which it was, inter alia, alleged that the project had not been closed, but the donor agencies had informed that the project may continue till 31-12-1994. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that as the petitioner was employed for a project, the notice for termination of his services was legal. As regards pension and gratuity, it was observed as follows:- " .a civil servant, who has rendered at least ten years service is entitled to claim pensionary benefits. In this case, the appellant has only put in 9-1/2 years service, which is less by six months. Under C.B.R. 371, the competent Authority is empowered to condone such type of gaps and examine all points as per para. 4 of the judgment, but the appellant, as the record shows, had not made any request to the competent Authority and this Tribunal, we are afraid, cannot exercise the power of the competent Authority and can adjudicate only on the orders issued by, the departmental authority as contemplated under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Therefore, this prayer is also misconceived."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had made representation for pension and gratuity and that in terms of Government instructions quoted in ground (c) of the petition, deficiency of six months or less in the qualifying service of a Government servant stands condoned and that the Tribunal had incorrectly interpreted these instructions. Leave, is granted to consider the question whether the petitioner is entitled to pension as claimed by him. A.A./A-66/S Leave granted