1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and 4 ,ethers Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
| Citation | 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hasan, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and 4 ,ethers Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hasan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and 4 ,ethers Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑‑S.115‑‑West Pakistan Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1963, R.1.8(b)‑‑Losses caused by retired official due to negligence or fraud during service‑‑Reimbursement of‑‑Right having been reserved to Government to recover from pension of retired official to reimburse itself for losses caused due to negligence or fraud committed by such retired official during his service, action for recovery from pension or gratuity of retired official taken by Government within prescribed period of one year, held, was saved by R.1.8(b) of Pension Rules, 1963.
Judgment & Decree
This civil revision impugns the judgment/decree dated 7‑12‑1976 of the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura.
2. The petitioner Province sought to recover a sum of Rs. 1,550 from the pension /gratuity of the respondent Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, Retired Overseer as losses to the Government property caused by him during his service.
3. The respondent brought the suit for declaration that he was not liable to pay the amount nor could it legally be recovered from him after his retirement.
4. The Courts below found that the recovery being made more than a year after the respondent's retirement was not sustainable in law and concurrently decreed the suit.
5. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. He is proceeded against ex parte.
6. Attention has been drawn to Rule 1.8(b) of the West Pakistan Civil Servants (Pension) Rules, 1965 which reserve a right to the Government to recover from the pension of a retired official to reimburse itself for losses caused due to his negligence or fraud committed during his service. The retirement had taken place on 16‑12‑1970 whereas notice to effect the recovery was served upon the respondent on 4‑11‑1971. Obviously it was within one year and was saved by Rule 1.8(b) supra. The‑observation of the learned District Judge that the E Government Pleader could not lay hand on any such rule is based upon some misconception. The aforementioned Rule was complete reply to his query and it saved the action of recovery from the respondent's pension or gratuity as it was taken within the prescribed period of one year. The learned District Judge somehow erroneously took the view that the claim was being more than a year after the respondent's retirement.
7. No other point was urged. As a result, the Civil Revision is accepted ex parte. The judgment under attack is set aside and the respondent's suit is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T. Revision petition accepted.