2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
IBADULLAH Versus FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court, |
| Bench Members | Sh. Ahmad Farooq, J |
| Parties | IBADULLAH Versus FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court, bench comprising: Sh. Ahmad Farooq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (IBADULLAH Versus FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Adnan Tariq Khan for Petitioner.
- Jawad Hassan Khan Addl. A.-G. with Tariq Mahmood Mirza Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Government of the Punjab for Respondents.
- 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, and going into the dictates of the notification relied upon by the petitioner, I, am of the considered view that the petitioner was not entitled to one increment as there was a cut off dated i.e. 1-6-2000 and the said notification had no retrospective effect. It has specifically been mentioned in the said notification that any claim of the pension/commutation pertaining to a period prior to this date shall not be entertained. The case decided by the honourable Supreme Court has no nexus or similarity with the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was an employee of Federal Government and Service Rules of Federal Government Employees are not ipso facto applicable to the employees of Government of the Punjab and they have their independent Service Rules. The notification upon which the petitioner is relying was neither discussed nor adjudicated upon before the honourable Supreme Court. The case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the petitioner/employee, who approached the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. There is no substance in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner who had retired in year 1987, applied to the authorities for grant of one increment from date of his retirement relying upon notification dated 3-1-2002
Petitioner was not entitled to required increment as there was a cut off date i.e. 1-6-2000; and said notification had no retrospective effect
Said notification specifically mentioned that any claim of pension/commutation pertaining to a period prior to that date, would not be entertained
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.
The present petitioner/Ibadullah, is a pensioner of Government of the Punjab. He was retired as Field Assistant from Agricultural Department on 13-7-1987. Relying upon Notification dated 3-1-2002, issued by Government of the Punjab, as well as judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 31-5-2004, passed in C.P. No.1350 of 2002, the petitioner applied to respondents Nos.2 and 3 for grant of one increment from the date of his retirement i.e. 1987, which is not being granted. Hence, the instant petition.
2. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent 1 and 2 it is stated that notification dated 3-1-2002 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the .petitioner was retired from service on 18-10-1987 and the benefit of the said notification was not extended to those employees who had retired prior to 1-6-2000. It has further been stated that an identical Writ Petition No.3448 of 2009 has already been dismissed by this Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, and going into the dictates of the notification relied upon by the petitioner, I, am of the considered view that the petitioner was not entitled to one increment as there was a cut off dated i.e. 1-6-2000 and the said notification had no retrospective effect. It has specifically been mentioned in the said notification that any claim of the pension/commutation pertaining to a period prior to this date shall not be entertained. The case decided by the honourable Supreme Court has no nexus or similarity with the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was an employee of Federal Government and Service Rules of Federal Government Employees are not ipso facto applicable to the employees of Government of the Punjab and they have their independent Service Rules. The notification upon which the petitioner is relying was neither discussed nor adjudicated upon before the honourable Supreme Court. The case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the petitioner/employee, who approached the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. There is no substance in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./I-11/L Petition dismissed.