2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Sufi GHULAM RASOOL Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and 3 others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Sufi GHULAM RASOOL Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Sufi GHULAM RASOOL Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
- 5. In spite of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give directions to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law in view of Article 4 of the Constitution while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in H.M. Rizvi's case (PLD 1981 SC 612). It is settled-principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the representation of their subordinates without fear, favour and nepotism within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of I' the General Clauses Act as per principle laid down by the Honourable I Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268) and Zain Yar Khan v. The Chief Engineer C.R. and others (1998 SCMR 2419). It is now well-settle proposition of law that a person who enters in Government service has also something to look forward after his retirements, to what are called retirement benefits, grant of pension being the most valuable of such I benefits. It is also settled proposition of law that pension like salary of a civil servant is no longer a bounty but is a right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period as the law laic down by the Honourable Supreme Court in The Government of the N.-W.F.P. v. Muhammad Said Khan and another (PLD 1973 SC 514). It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by the inactions of the public functionaries as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmad Lateef Qureshi v. Controller of Examinations (PLD 1994 Lahore 3). It is also the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to act in accordance with law which is the mandate of the Constitution in view of Article 5(2) of the Constitution as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Zahoor Illahi's case (PLD 1975 SC 383). In this view of the matter, let a copy of this writ petition be sent to respondent No.2, who is directed to decide the appeal representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order preferably within two months after receiving the order of this Court. Petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 in his office on 22-9-2003 at 11-00 a.m. who is directed to decide the appeal-representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law in terms of the aforesaid direction preferably within two months till 22-11-2003 either himself or send the same to the competent authority who is also directed to decide the appeal-representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with taw in terms of the aforesaid preferably Within two months till 22-11-2003. He is further directed to sumit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned Law Officer is also directed to send a copy of the writ petition alongwith this order to respondent No. 1, who is also directed to look into the matter personally what is happening in his departments that poor people are being penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries and poor people after their retirement could not receive the pension and other benefits within reasonable time on account of the inactions of the public functionaries. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition alongwith all, the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate General, who is directed to send the same to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for necessary action and compliance. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.
Headnotes / Summary
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.4, 5(2), 199 & 212
General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A
Constitutional petition-- Grant of pension
Duty and obligation of public functionaries
Inaction of Authorities
Civil servant after his retirement submitted his pension papers to the Authorities, but Authorities having not finalized case of civil servant on one pretext or the other, civil servant filed Constitutional petition alleging that he was penalized by inaction of the Authorities-- Maintainability of the petition was challenged in view of bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution
Despite bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution read with S.4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, High Court had ample jurisdiction to give directions to public functionaries to act in accordance with law in view of Art.4 of the Constitution while exercising its powers under Art.199 of the Constitution
Duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide representation of their subordinates without fear, favour and nepotism within reasonable time-- Nobody should be penalized by inactions of public functionaries-- -Public functionaries were obliged to act in accordance with law which was the mandate of Constitution in view of Art.5(2) of the Constitution
Person who entered in Government service had also something to look forward after his retirement, to what were called retirement benefits, grant of pension was most valuable of such benefits
Pension like salary of a civil servant was not a bounty, but was a right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period
Authority concerned was directed to decide appeal/representation of civil servant strictly in accordance with law after providing him proper hearing within specified period. H.M. Rizvi's case PLD 1981 SC 612; Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi Airport 1998 SCMR 2268; Zain Yar Khan v. Chief Engineer C.R. and others 1998 SCMR 2419; Government of the N.-W.F.P. v. Muhammad Said Khan and another PLD 1973 SC 514; Ahmad Lateef Qureshi v. Controller of Examinations PLD 1994 Lah. 3 and Ch. Zahoor Illahi's case PLD 1975 SC 383 ref. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G. (on Court's call).
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G. (on Court's call). The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was retired after completing the normal period of service by the respondents on 14-4-2001. The petitioner submitted his pension papers to the respondents but the respondents did not finalize the case of the petitioner on the one pretext or the other.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner is penalized by the inaction of the respondents. He further submits that pension, salary is not bounty of the State but it is a right of the Government Servant. He further submits that petitioner has submitted various applications before respondents Nos.1 and 2 who did not decide the same till date. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
3. The learned Law Officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that writ petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of parties and perused the record.
5. In spite of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give directions to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law in view of Article 4 of the Constitution while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in H.M. Rizvi's case (PLD 1981 SC 612). It is settled-principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the representation of their subordinates without fear, favour and nepotism within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of I' the General Clauses Act as per principle laid down by the Honourable I Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268) and Zain Yar Khan v. The Chief Engineer C.R. and others (1998 SCMR 2419). It is now well-settle proposition of law that a person who enters in Government service has also something to look forward after his retirements, to what are called retirement benefits, grant of pension being the most valuable of such I benefits. It is also settled proposition of law that pension like salary of a civil servant is no longer a bounty but is a right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period as the law laic down by the Honourable Supreme Court in The Government of the N.-W.F.P. v. Muhammad Said Khan and another (PLD 1973 SC 514). It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by the inactions of the public functionaries as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmad Lateef Qureshi v. Controller of Examinations (PLD 1994 Lahore 3). It is also the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to act in accordance with law which is the mandate of the Constitution in view of Article 5(2) of the Constitution as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Zahoor Illahi's case (PLD 1975 SC 383). In this view of the matter, let a copy of this writ petition be sent to respondent No.2, who is directed to decide the appeal representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order preferably within two months after receiving the order of this Court. Petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 in his office on 22-9-2003 at 11-00 a.m. who is directed to decide the appeal-representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law in terms of the aforesaid direction preferably within two months till 22-11-2003 either himself or send the same to the competent authority who is also directed to decide the appeal-representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with taw in terms of the aforesaid preferably Within two months till 22-11-2003. He is further directed to sumit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned Law Officer is also directed to send a copy of the writ petition alongwith this order to respondent No. 1, who is also directed to look into the matter personally what is happening in his departments that poor people are being penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries and poor people after their retirement could not receive the pension and other benefits within reasonable time on account of the inactions of the public functionaries. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition alongwith all, the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate General, who is directed to send the same to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for necessary action and compliance. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. With these observations this writ petition is disposed. H.B.T./G-310 Order accordingly