2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AFTAB ALI KHAN Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through Chairman and another
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui and Rashid Ali Mirza, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFTAB ALI KHAN Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through Chairman and another |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui and Rashid Ali Mirza, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AFTAB ALI KHAN Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through Chairman and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfanullah G. Ali for Appellant.
- Abdul Majeed for Respondents along with Departmental Representative Khalid Rasheed.
- Abdul Majeed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 2006.
- QAZI MUAHMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---Advocates for the parties are present. Heard them and perused the record of the case including the written comments filed on behalf of' the Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 19
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Appellant, after his retirement from service under voluntary retirement scheme, was drawing his pension, but same was stopped without any notice to the appellant on allegations that residential quarter allotted to him had been sub-let by him and that certain amount pertaining to rent and utilities was outstanding against him
Validity--Authorities, had a right to recover any amount outstanding against a retired employee, but that could be done only after issuing a show-cause notice to him and giving him opportunity to defend action against him
Pension of appellant could not have been stopped without issuing him any show-cause notice
Impugned order was set aside with direction to release pension of appellant
Authorities could take action against appellant after issuing proper show-cause notice. 2004 SCMR 656 ref.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUAHMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).
Advocates for the parties are present. Heard them and perused the record of the case including the written comments filed on behalf of' the Respondents.
2. The Appellant retired from service on 29-2-1998 under voluntary retirement scheme. After his retirement, the appellant had been receiving his pension, but it was stopped w.e.f. April, 2004 by the Respondents, vide order dated 18-2-2004, without any notice to the appellant; hence, the appeal filed by the appellant on 4-12-2004 for setting aside the impugned order and for passing any appropriate order as deemed fit by the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents admits that pension of the appellant had been stopped without any notice to the appellant. The reason for such action was given by the learned counsel that the appellant had not handed over the quarter allotted to him at the time of his retirement and had handed over the possession of the said quarter to one Haji Nawab Khan, to whom the said quarter was sub-let by him. An amount of Rs.30,078 pertaining to rent and utilities had been outstanding against the appellant, which could not be recovered from the said occupant of the quarter; hence, there was no alternative left with the respondents but to stop the pension of the appellant. The learned counsel has stated that no notice could be issued to the appellant, as his address was not known.
4. We have considered the above arguments of both sides. The respondents had right to recover any amount outstanding against a retired employee (i.e. the appellant) from his pension, but that could be done only after issuing a show-cause notice to him and an opportunity given to him to defend the action against him, but there is nothing on record to show that any notice was sent to the appellant on any address., Without show-cause notice to the appellant his pension could not be stopped as has been done by the respondents. Reliance is placed on 2004 SCMR
656. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 18-2-2004 and direct the respondents to release the pension of the appellant. The respondents shall be at liberty to take action, if any against the appellant for recovery of any amount outstanding against the appellant, after issuing proper show-cause notice to him. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
5. Announced in open Court.
6. Copies of this Judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rule-21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974. H.B.T./36/FST Appeal allowed.