P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
ABUL KHAIR WALIULLAH‑Appellant Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | B. Z. Kaikaus and Wahiduddin Ahmed, .LI |
| Parties | ABUL KHAIR WALIULLAH‑Appellant Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: B. Z. Kaikaus and Wahiduddin Ahmed, .LI.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 (W (PLP) (ABUL KHAIR WALIULLAH‑Appellant Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalid Ishaq for Appellant.
- Nasiruddin for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing : 10th and 11th February 1959.
Headnotes / Summary
Government servant‑Rule requiring submission of an applica tion for pension‑Matter of procedure‑Government servant entitled , to pension from date of retirement.
Judgment & Decree
B.Z. KAIKAUS, J.‑Abul Khair Waliullah a Head Clerk in the Posts and Telegraphs Department was made to retire on the 27th of March 1948, when he reached the age of 55 years. He filed a suit out of which this appeal arises for reinstatement, for arrears of salary anal for damages. The only point urged before the learned Single Judge on his behalf was that he was a ministerial servant and the ordinary age of retirement of a ministerial servant was not 55 years but 60 years and therefore he could not have been removed from service without notice to show cause. On account of a recent judgment by their Lordships of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that the age of retirement of a ministerial servant is 55 that point not being urged before us. The only contention now put forward is that as a matter of fact the appellant had not been called upon to retire by any officer who was in law entitled to pass such an order. But there is abundant material on the file which shows that the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs himself had confirmed the order of retirement. It is not urged that even the Director General could not have required the appellant to retire. This appeal has, therefore, to be dismissed but there is one point which we should make clear. It has been suggested in the correspondence which has been placed on the file that the appellant would be entitled to pension only from the date on which he applies for pension. This conclusion appears to be based on a rule according to which application for pension should be submitted even before a servant retires. There can be little doubt that this application is a mere matter of procedure and that the civil servant is entitled to his pension not from the date when he puts in an application but from the date on which he retires. The appeal is dismissed but the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. K. B. A./A. H. Appeal dismissed.