PLC(CS) 2005

2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

DHARAM CHAND Versus DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER, LARKANA and 3 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi High Court
Decided Date
Constitutional Petition No.D-20 of 2004, decided on 20th February, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Wahid Bux Brohi and Maqbool Baqar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Karachi High Court
Bench Members Wahid Bux Brohi and Maqbool Baqar, JJ
Parties DHARAM CHAND Versus DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER, LARKANA and 3 others
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Wahid Bux Brohi and Maqbool Baqar, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DHARAM CHAND Versus DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER, LARKANA and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram for Petitioner.
  • Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, Addl. A.-G. along with Dileep Kumar on behalf of DCO, Larkana for Respondents.
  • The Local Support Officer appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 DCO, Larkana submits that they had recently received instructions from Govt of Sindh to put up a demand covering pension and pensionery benefit claimed by all the employees of District Government etc. retired up to year 2003, for which they are collecting figures and would make slue reference. He expects release of funds in view of such reference, but we understand, it may take sufficient time. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner has referred to decision of this Court in C.P. No.D-74 of 2003, wherein one of the employees of same Municipality Haji Soomro was encountering similar difficulties and was allowed pensionery benefits in instalment of Rs.7000 per month. The respondent No.3 has accordingly shown his willingness to follow the same arrangement in the case of petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Grant of pension and pensionary benefit

Authority had submitted that Department had received instructions from Government to put up a demand covering pension and pensionary benefit claimed by all the employees of District Government retired upto year2003 for which they were collecting figures and would make due reference which would take sufficient time

Petitioner, who was retired in the month of January, 2002, was facing a lot of financial difficulties while he was also proposing to arrange marriage of his daughter and being hard up, he needed some amount in lump sum to meet his urgent needs

Validity

High Court directed that out of entire claim of petitioner an amount of Rs.7000 per month be paid to petitioner on or before specified date of every Calander month starting from March, 2004 and an amount of Rs.40,000 be also paid to him within specified period.

Judgment & Decree

The Local Support Officer appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 DCO, Larkana submits that they had recently received instructions from Govt of Sindh to put up a demand covering pension and pensionery benefit claimed by all the employees of District Government etc. retired up to year 2003, for which they are collecting figures and would make slue reference. He expects release of funds in view of such reference, but we understand, it may take sufficient time. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner has referred to decision of this Court in C.P. No.D-74 of 2003, wherein one of the employees of same Municipality Haji Soomro was encountering similar difficulties and was allowed pensionery benefits in instalment of Rs.7000 per month. The respondent No.3 has accordingly shown his willingness to follow the same arrangement in the case of petitioner. Mr. Jai Jai Veshno on consultation with the petitioner submits that the petitioner was retired in the month of January, 2002 and by this time the petitioners is facing a lot of financial difficulties while he is also proposing to get marriage of his daughter and being hard-up he needs some amount in lump sum to meet his urgent needs. Considering all the circumstances and following the earlier precedent laid down by this Court, we direct that out of the entire claim of the petitioner an amount of Rs.7000 per month be paid to him on or before 5th of every calendar month starting from March, 2004 and at the same time an amount of Rs.40,000 be also paid to him within ten days hereof. The petitioner stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./D-22/K Order accordingly