P L D 1969 Dacca 657 (PLP)
ABDUL RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus OFFICER‑IN‑CHARGE, ARMY STORES INSPECTION DEPOT, DACCA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1969 Dacca 657 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | S. M. Murshed, C. J. and Abu Md. Abdulla, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus OFFICER‑IN‑CHARGE, ARMY STORES INSPECTION DEPOT, DACCA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1969 Dacca 657 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1969 Dacca 657 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: S. M. Murshed, C. J. and Abu Md. Abdulla, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1969 Dacca 657 (PLP) (ABDUL RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus OFFICER‑IN‑CHARGE, ARMY STORES INSPECTION DEPOT, DACCA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K. M. Ahmed and M. Zahir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98(2), (3) (b) ‑Terms and conditions of service not specifically provided in Consti tution‑Not subject to adjudication in petition under Art. 98 (2). Article 98(3)(b) contemplates that no order can be passed by the High Court under Article 98 (2), if it relates to terms and conditions of service of a petitioner. There is only one exception, namely, in case of terms and conditions which are specifically provided as such in the Constitution itself. No petition will lie for an adjudication upon terms and conditions of any holder of a civil post in the service of Pakistan, unless there is a violation of specific terms and conditions mentioned in the body of the Constitution itself. (b) Civilian Employees in Defence Service (Further Useful ness in Service) Rules, 1964‑Benefits with regard to retention in service after superannuation‑Not enforceable by petition under Art. 98(2), Constitution of Pakistan (1962). It is well‑settled that an order of retirement after the age of superannuation of a person employed in the service of Pakistan does not amount to either dismissal or removal. 7 his proposi tion is clear. Therefore, the grievance of the petititioner virtu ally amounts to this that proper indulgences have not been given to the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. This is a matter on which the High Court is not, empowered to pass an order under Article 98(2) of the Constitution in view of the provisions of sub‑Article (3) (b) of Article
98. Respondent: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
MURSHED, C. J.‑In this application the petitioner has come with a grievance that the benefits conferred upon him by the Civilian Employees in Defence Services (Further Usefulness in Service) Rules, 1964, have been violated. Without entering into the merits of the case the question that arises is. Is it so, in view of the provisions of Article 98(3) (b) of the Constitution? Article 98(3)(b) contemplates that no order can be passed by this Court under Article 98 (2),, if it relates to terms and 5 conditions of service of a petitioner. There is only one excep tion, namely, in case of terms and conditions which are specifically provided as such in the Constitution itself. No petition will lie for an adjudication upon terms and conditions of any holder of a civil post in the service of Pakistan, unless there is a violation of specific terms and conditions mentioned in the body of the Constitution itself. In this case it is patent that the main grievance of the petitioner is the violation of the aforesaid Rules which are nothing but rules framed to enable the employer to retain the service of those persons who may remain fit even after the age of superannuation. It has been argued before us that the impugned order of retirement mentioned in the petition amounts to removal. Is it so 2 The petitioner has stated that he has already reached the age of 55 years. It is, therefore, patent that he has reached the age of superannuation. It is well‑settled that an order of retirement after the age of superannuation of a person employed in the service of Pakistan does not amount to either dismissal or removal. This proposition is clear. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner virtually amounts to this that 8 proper indulgences ‑have not been given to the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. This is a matter on which this Court is not, according to us, empowered to pass an order under Article 98(2) of the Constitution in view of the provisions of sub‑Article (3)(b) of Article
98. The petition is, therefore, rejected. ABU MD. ABDULLA, J.‑I agree. A. E. Petition rejected.