2002 PLP 876 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th January, 2002. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 30‑10‑2000 whereby Appeal No.2093(R) of 1999 filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Finance Division, Islamabad for increase in his pension at the rate of 20 per cent was disposed of.

2. Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner was working as Solicitor to the Government of Pakistan, Justice Division, Islamabad, and on attaining the age of superannuation, vide notification dated 14‑9‑1987 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, was retired from service in the afternoon of 13th December, 1987. However, he was re‑employed on the same post w.e.f, 14‑12‑1987 to 30‑6‑1991. Later on vide Office Order dated 25‑9‑1997 the petitioner was appointed in Capital Development Authority, Islamabad. (hereinafter to be referred to as "C.D.A.") as Legal Consultant on a fixed remuneration of Rs.14,000 with other benefits. On the basis of O.M, NO.F.4(1)R.6/99 dated 23‑7‑1999 which allowed 20 per cent. increase in the pension of Government servants, the petitioner also claimed increase in his pension at the same rate for the period in question. Para. 7 of the Finance Divisions memorandum dated 23‑7‑1999, provides as under:‑‑ "7., In case of re‑employed pensioners, the increase in pension sanctioned in this office memorandum shall not be admissible to them during the period of their re‑employment. "

3. The petitioner undeniably was re‑employed and in the light of above para., he would not be entitled to the increase in pension under Finance Division's memorandum dated 23‑7‑1999 (ibid). The Service Tribunal, however, elaborately dealt with the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same in the following terms:‑ "The Government of Pakistan Finance Division's memorandum referred to above has not allowed the increase in pension during the period of re‑employment as such the specific decision of the Government for not allowing increase in pension to any re employed person during the period of his re‑employment will also be applicable to the appellant's case. However, it is observed that the appellant will be entitled for the increase in pension from the date of termination of his re‑employment contract. "

4. There can be no exception to the view taken by the learned Tribunal regarding grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner and rejection of claim of the petitioner, that he being a full time employee in the C.D.A., was entitled to the benefits available to the employees of C.D.A. The petitioner while appearing in person repeated the, contentions raised by him before the Tribunal and submitted that he was wrongly deprived of the benefit in question. Having considered the contention of the petitioner, we find no substance in the same as the petitioner, after retirement from Government service, was employed by the C.D.A., an autonomous body, on the terms and conditions contained in his appointment letter, and therefore, he would not be entitled to the benefits made available to Government servants under Finance Division memorandum dated 23‑7‑1999.

5. After hearing the petitioner in person, we find no substance in this " petition and even otherwise no question of law of public importance is involved in this matter and consequently we dismiss the petition. Leave is refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑160/S Petition dismissed.