1992 PLP 1140 (SCMR)
AYUB HASSAN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑‑Responder
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1140 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul salam, Rustam S. Sidhwa and |
| Parties | AYUB HASSAN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑‑Responder |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1140 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1140 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul salam, Rustam S. Sidhwa and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1140 (SCMR) (AYUB HASSAN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑‑Responder). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mr. Shamsi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Abdul Maajid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record. (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 19‑4‑1983 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, in Appeal No.175/1619 of 1982). (a) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Retirement‑‑‑Civil servant's retirement on the ground of his having completed twenty‑five years 'of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Had civil servant not been retired he would have retired on superannuation ‑‑‑Civil servant's service under the Central Government could not be tagged with his service under the Provincial Government‑‑‑Order of civil servant's retirement by including in his service, the period of his service under the Central Government being not warranted by law, order of his retirement was set aside. (b) Civil service‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Retirement‑‑‑Civil servant's retirement after completion of twenty‑five years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits‑‑ Provincial Government while passing impugned order of civil servant's retirement had included in his service record the period of his service under the Central Government‑‑‑Service under the Central Government could not be tagged'with service under the Provincial Government‑‑‑Civil servant's order of retirement being not valid was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil service‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Retirement‑‑‑Civil servant's retirement after completion of twenty‑five years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits‑‑ Provincial Government while passing impugned order of civil servant's retirement had included in his service record the period of his service under the Central Government‑‑‑Service under the Central Government could not be tagged'with service under the Provincial Government‑‑‑Civil servant's order of retirement being not valid was set aside. Mr. Shamsi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Abdul Maajid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record. (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th July, 1991. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances: The appellant was working as Additional Sessions Judge when by an order, dated 10‑12=1979 he was retired from service on the ground of having completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits. He filed a review petition but it was dismissed on 4‑4‑1981. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It too was dismissed on 19‑4‑1983. He filed petition for leave to appeal and it was submitted that "at the time when the order of retirement was made, he had put in only 15 years of service under the Provincial Government. Before joining service under the Provincial Government, he was an employee of the Central Government. While computing the period of qualifying service, the Provincial Government has taken into account his service under the Central Government as well which was not permissible under the rules. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as Secretary to Government of Punjab v. Noor Muhammad Khan PLD 1984 SC
82. Leave was granted to consider the contention vide order, dated 19‑2‑1989. .
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that if he had not been retired vide the impugned order, dated 19‑4‑1983 the appellant would have retired on superannuatioh on 24‑9‑1988. In view of the judgment of this Court quoted above service under the Central Government could not be tagged with service under the Provincial Government. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 10‑12‑1979 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellant is occupying a Government Quarter. He must vacate it. Appellant who is present in person states that he shall vacate the quarter by 1‑10‑1991. Let him do so. The appeal is allowed in the above terms without any order as to costs. AA./A‑910/S Appeal allowed.