2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SAMO Versus DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER, LARKANA and 3 others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam and Gulzar Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | SAMO Versus DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER, LARKANA and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 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: Mushir Alam and Gulzar Ahmed, 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)) (SAMO Versus DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER, LARKANA and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jai Jai Vishnu for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Bachal Tunio, Addl. A.G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.13 & 20
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Entitlement to receive retirement benefits
Amount of retirement benefit was not disputed and on retirement, petitioner was entitled for payment of entire amount in lump sum
No justification was to make payment in piecemeal to deprive civil servants who had served Department throughout their lives and pittance was offered to petitioner, which otherwise, was their legitimate due against respondents
Respondents were directed to ensure that entire amount of retirement benefits be paid to petitioner within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner claims the amount of Rs.185,000 (rupees one lac, eighty five thousand only) being retirement benefit. Such amount is not disputed. On retirement petitioner is entitled for payment of the entire amount in lump sum. There appears to be no justification to make the payment in piecemeal to deprive the Civil Servants, who have served the Department through their live and the amount is offered as a pittance, which otherwise, is legitimate and due against the respondents. We do not approve of such tendency of practice of the Local Government of paying the amount in piecemeal. Under circumstances, the respondents are directed to ensure that the entire amount is paid to the petitioner within 30 days. In case, such amount is not paid, Secretary, Local Government is directed to appear in Court in person. H.B.T./S-62/K Petition allowed.