2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
PROVINCE OF SINDH Versus Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF SINDH Versus Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN |
| Primary Law | Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PROVINCE OF SINDH Versus Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate‑General and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Imran Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. .
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 2001.
- ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Retirement from service on the basis of wrong entry of date of birth‑‑‑Date of birth of civil servant as recorded in his service book was 1‑3‑1941, and on its basis date of superannuation was 28‑2‑2001‑‑‑Departmental record showed his date of birth as 1‑3‑1939, thus, he was retired from service on 28‑2‑1999‑‑‑Civil servant challenged notification of his retirement and claimed consequential benefits of promotion and revised pay/pension etc., by way of filing departmental appeal, but the same was dismissed‑‑‑Service Tribunal accepted the appeal of civil servant, when Assistant Advocate‑General conceded that civil servant had been wrongly retired due to bona fide mistake and not due to any mala fide intention‑‑‑Contention of Department was that after retirement from Government service, civil servant was not entitled to any relief and that dues of such a civil servant could not be settled by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant had been deprived of his legal dues/benefits due to mistake committed by Department, which could not be allowed now to take advantage of its own unjustified act of omission and commission‑‑‑Order passed by Service Tribunal was just and proper, which did not warrant any interference‑‑‑Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition in circumstances.
- "The Assistant Advocate‑General while admitting the fact that the appellant was wrongly retired, claimed that it was due to bona fide mistake and not due to any mala fide intention and, therefore, conceded that based on this fact the Tribunal may pass suitable order f in the light of prayers of the appellant. "
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑4‑2001 of Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi passed in Appeal No.387 of 2000). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Retirement from service on the basis of wrong entry of date of birth‑‑‑Date of birth of civil servant as recorded in his service book was 1‑3‑1941, and on its basis date of superannuation was 28‑2‑2001‑‑‑Departmental record showed his date of birth as 1‑3‑1939, thus, he was retired from service on 28‑2‑1999‑‑‑Civil servant challenged notification of his retirement and claimed consequential benefits of promotion and revised pay/pension etc., by way of filing departmental appeal, but the same was dismissed‑‑‑Service Tribunal accepted the appeal of civil servant, when Assistant Advocate‑General conceded that civil servant had been wrongly retired due to bona fide mistake and not due to any mala fide intention‑‑‑Contention of Department was that after retirement from Government service, civil servant was not entitled to any relief and that dues of such a civil servant could not be settled by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant had been deprived of his legal dues/benefits due to mistake committed by Department, which could not be allowed now to take advantage of its own unjustified act of omission and commission‑‑‑Order passed by Service Tribunal was just and proper, which did not warrant any interference‑‑‑Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑Province of Sindh, the petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 25‑4‑2001 of learned Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi delivered in Service Appeal No.387 of 2000, whereby said appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed.
2. The respondent was appointed as A.S.‑I. on regular basis on 1‑11‑1959. His date of birth is 1‑3‑1941 and it is reflected in service book. On the basis of said date, the date of superannuation was 28‑2‑2001. Inadvertently, his date of birth in police record was shown as 1‑3‑1939. He was retired from service on 28‑2‑1999. After following usual procedure, he filed departmental appeal challenging Notification dated 20‑2‑1998 and also claimed consequential benefits of promotions, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.10‑2000. Thereafter, he filed appeal before Tribunal, which was allowed with the following observations:‑‑ "The Assistant Advocate‑General while admitting the fact that the appellant was wrongly retired, claimed that it was due to bona fide mistake and not due to any mala fide intention and, therefore, conceded that based on this fact the Tribunal may pass suitable order f in the light of prayers of the appellant. "
3. The respondent was granted reliefs in terms of judgment dated 25‑4‑2001 of learned Service Tribunal.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was not entitled to any relief after his retirement from Government service. It is also urged that Tribunal seriously erred by allowing appeal of the respondent without appreciating law and principles governing the terms and conditions of a civil servant. Learned counsel also argued that the dues of a civil servant after his retirement could nor he settled by learned Tribunal.
5. Learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to issue revised notification retiring the respondent w.e.f. 28‑2‑2001 on the basis of his correct date of birth. The petitioner was also directed that the respondent's pay and pension were to be fixed on the basis of revised date of retirement and all consequential benefits arising therefrom till date of his retirement, were to be paid in full. It was also ordered that the department may place the case of the respondent before Departmental Promotion Committee and, if he was otherwise eligible and there was a vacancy existing at the time of his antedated retirement, a pro forma promotion could be allowed to him to enable him to draw revised benefits including pay and pension.
6. We have noticed that the respondent was deprived of his legal dues/benefits due to mistake committed by the department and now the department cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own unjustified act of omission and commission. The order of the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted.
7. Inconsequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. S. A. K./P‑51/S?????????? Petition dismissed.