2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
INTIZAR HUSSAIN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI and 4 others
| Citation | 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members |
| Parties | INTIZAR HUSSAIN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (INTIZAR HUSSAIN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th January, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 4
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Compulsory retirement from service
Appellant was compulsorily retired from service on the charge of remaining absent from duty-Appellant who had received more than ten lacs of Rupees towards his pensionary benefits was informed that he would have to refund entire benefits taken by him together with interest in case of his reinstatement, but appellant had stated that he had not a single penny to pay to the respondent-Authority
Request of appellant that he be reinstated and amount received by him towards his pensionary benefits be adjusted from his monthly salary, could not be granted as he had to refund the entire amount received by him in lump sum on his reinstatement
Appellant having shown his inability to refund amount, his appeal against his compulsory retirement was not competent
Appellant, after having received entire pensionary benefits and refusal to refund the same, had no locus standi to file appeal. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).
Intizar Hussain appellant was as Assistant Manager in the House Building Finance Corporation, hereinafter called respondent. On the charge of remaining absent from duty he was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 19-10-1999. Against the order of his compulsory retirement he filed a departmental appeal on 22-10-1999, followed by two more appeals dated 17-11-1999 and 21-12-1999. Since the departmental appeals were not responded by the respondents, therefore, he filed the present appeal on 19-2-2000. It is prayed by him that order of his compulsory retirement be set aside and he be reinstated into service with back benefits.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant has already received his provident fund and other pensionary benefits on his own request made on 23-11-1999, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the present appeal. On merits it is stated that the appellant was charge sheeted on 19-3-1999 and all the legal formalities were observed after which he was compulsorily retired from service. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellant had remained absent from duty on false excuse of being sick as he did not want to join the station to which he had been transferred i.e. Muzaffargarh.
3. We have heard the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have also perused the record.
4. The appellant has told us that he has received more than 10 lacs towards his pensionary benefits. We have informed him that he has to refund the entire benefits taken by him together with interest in case of his reinstatement but he has stated that he has not a single penny to pay to the respondents. He has requested that he be reinstated and the amount received by him towards his pensionary benefits be adjusted from his monthly salary. This request of he appellant cannot be granted. He has to refund the entire amount received by him in lump sum on his reinstatement. Since he has shown his inability to do so, therefore, we are constrained to hold that his present appeal is not competent. After having received the entire pensionary benefits and refusal to refund the same he has no locus standi to file the present appeal.
5. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.
6. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./11/FST Appeal dismissed.