2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

ALI BAIG, J.

This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Muhammad Arif against the impugned Judgment / Decree dated 31-08-2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit whereby the learned 1st Appellate court has dismissed the suit of the present petitioner / plaintiff by setting aside the Judgment / decree passed by the learned trial court in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff.

2. Precisely, facts giving rise to the filing of the instant civil revision petition are that the plaintiff/ petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/ defendants in the trial court claiming that the petitioner was serving in National Bank of Pakistan and he was promoted against the post of Senior Vice President on 01-12-2002. After completion of five years Service as Senior Vice-President the petitioner had become entitled to purchase the official vehicle on subsidized rate as per bank rules but the Respondent / Defendants have not given the official vehicle on subsidized rate in time on one pretext or the other and consequently the petitioner retired from service on 31-03-2009 as senior Vice-President. Ultimately the respondents sold out an official vehicle Toyota XLI bearing registration No. HB 915 model 2004 on subsidized rate of Rs. 84,000/- on 08-02-2010 and the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner. Now respondents / defendants are bent upon to get back the afore said vehicle with the plea that after his retirement an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner / plaintiff and in the light of inquiry report the petitioner has been demoted from the post of Senior Vice-President to the post of Vice President, therefore, the petitioner / plaintiff is not entitled to get the official vehicle on depreciated cost. The Petitioner / Plaintiff has also prayed in the plaint that the respondents / defendants may be restrained from taking back the official / disputed vehicle from the petitioner.

3. The present respondents being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing their written statement in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal and factual objections / grounds.

4. Anyhow, out of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff has been retired from the post SVP/RYC on 31-3-2009? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff has been promoted to the post of SVP on 01.12.2002 and he was entitled to purchased the vehicle on Residential Value as per Bank Rule in the year 2009? OPP.

3. Whether the defendant was bound to sell out the bank vehicle to him on Residue Value? OPP

4. Whether the defendant has sold out the vehicle XLI Corolla bearing Registration No.HB.915 Model No.2004 to him vide letter dated 08.02.2010 as SVP and he has paid the sum of Rs.84000/? OPP.

5. Whether the value of the vehicle come to zero after five years and the bank authority sell it to SVP at the charge of 10%?OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff has got registered the vehicle in his name in accordance with the rule? OPP.

7. Whether the letter issued by the defendant No.3 is against the law, void and is ineffective upon his right? OPP.

8. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable on the basis of principle of estoppels? OPD.

9. Whether the suit of plaintiff is rejectable under Order VIII rule 11 CPC? OPD.

10. Whether the suit of plaintiff is within time? OPP.

11. Whether the plaintiff remained no more entitled to purchased the vehicle after his demotion from SVP to VP? OPD

12. Whether the inquiry is pending against the plaintiff in NAB over his mis-used of power and if so it's legal effect? OPD.

13. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for? OPP.

14. Relief?

5. After framing of above mentioned issues the petitioner / plaintiff produced two witnesses and also got recorded his own statement. The respondents got recorded their statement through their departmental representative namely Muhammad Hussain and did not produce any oral witness / evidence. However respondents / defendants have produced some documents in the trial court as documentary evidence. On conclusion of trial the learned trial court decreed the suit of plaintiff / petitioner in his favour vide decree / judgment dated 17-06-2016.

6. The present respondents / defendants filed civil 1st appeal in the court of Additional District Judge Gilgit against the judgment / decree passed by the learned trial court. The learned 1st Appellate Court vide impugned judgment / decree dated 31-08-2017 has accepted the appeal of the present respondents/defendants by setting aside the judgment/decree of the learned trial court. Hence this revision petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment / decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such impugned judgment / decree passed by learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned judgment / decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court is a result of misreading and non reading of evidence of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the learned 1st appellate court has not applied its judicious thought while passing the impugned judgment / decree and has wrongly set aside the well reasoned judgment / decree passed by the learned trial court.

8. On the other hand the learned Legal Adviser of the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that since the petitioner was involved in bad loaning, therefore, an inquiry against the petitioner was initiated / conducted after his retirement and he was found guilty. Accordingly the petitioner was demoted from the post of senior vice president to vice president NBP, hence the petitioner is not entitled to retain official vehicle after demotion which was given to the petitioner on depreciated cost by the present respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that since the petitioner has not challenged his demotion order before the competent forum / court, therefore, he cannot retain the official vehicle. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the respondents argued that after his demotion from the post of senior vice president to the post of vice-president the petitioner is no more entitled to retain the official vehicle which was given to him on depreciated cost by the respondents and learned 1st appellate court has rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner / plaintiff.

9. Arguments pro and contra have been heard and record perused.

10. Admittedly the petitioner has been serving in National Bank of Pakistan against various posts and had been promoted against the posts of senior vice president on 01-02-2002. After serving many years in NBP against various positions the petitioner had retired from service on 31-03-2009 as senior vice president and according to bank rules the petitioner had become entitled to purchase an official vehicle on depreciated cost. Accordingly the respondents sold a vehicle motor car XLI Corolla to the petitioner at depreciated cost i.e. Rs. 84,000/-. The petitioner paid cost of the aforesaid vehicle to the respondents. After his retirement the respondents allegedly demoted the petitioner from the post of senior vice-president to the vice president and issued a letter to the petitioner to return the disputed vehicle on the ground that since he has been demoted from S.V.P to V.P, therefore, he is not entitled to retain the vehicle.

11. It is admitted fact that at the time of his retirement no inquiry was pending against the petitioner as admitted by the departmental representative in his cross-examination that no inquiry was pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. Even otherwise under SRO No.1/80 dated 10-November 1980, if any inquiry into conduct of government official is pending and he attains the age of superannuation before completion of the inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings against him shall abate and such officer shall retire with all pensionery benefits.

12. In this connection I would like to re-produce the said notification as under:- S.R.O.... (1)/80,-- In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 25 of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973), the President is pleased to direct that the following further amendment shall be made in a Civil Service Regulations, namely :- In the aforesaid Regulations, after Article 417 the following new Article shall be inserted, namely:- "417A- If an officer, who has been suspended pending inquiry into his conduct, attains age of superannuation before the completion of the inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings against him shall abate and such officer shall retire with full pensionery benefits and period of suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty" Sd/X X Ikram H. Ghauri Section Offier Tele:29192

13. From perusal of above reproduced notification it transpires that the petitioner is very much entitled to retain his official vehicle which he has purchased from the respondents on depreciated cost at the time of his retirement.

14. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that if in consonance to an order passed by an authority competent to pass such an order, certain rights are created in favour of a person, the said order cannot be subsequently undone or withdrawn. In this connection reliance can be placed on the authorities of Supreme Court of Pakistan 2004 SCMR 1864, 2011 SCMR 1220 and PLD 2008 SC 901.

15. Further more main thrust of contention of the learned counsel for respondents is that since the petitioner has not challenged his demotion order, therefore, he is not entitled to retain the disputed vehicle. In this connection it is observed that the petitioner has filed writ petition in this court against his demotion order which has been admitted for regular hearing recently, by this Court.

16. For the forgoing reasons, I accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned judgment / order dated 31-08-2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit and consequently the decree / judgment passed by the learned trial court in favour of the petitioner is up held. There shall be no order as to costs. File. ZC/164/GB Revision accepted.