1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The dispute in this case revolves around the pension during the period petitioner remained in the Village‑Aid Department. The facts giving rise to the institution of this petition are that the petitioner was initially recruited in Village‑Aid Department and the said department was wound up and another department known as Basic democracies was created. At the time of the winding up of the Village‑Aid Department, it was decided that those who had possessed unblemished record of service should be transferred to the Basic Democracies Department while services of those who had unsatisfactory record of service were to be terminated. In order to evaluate satisfactory service or otherwise, a Committee A that time was constituted to scrutinise each case for transfer of those who had satisfactory record of service. The services of some employees were terminated but subsequent thereto, they were employed in the Basic Democracies Department as there were vacancies to absorb them. In this case while evaluating the pension of the petitioner, office of the accountant‑General, Punjab, raised an objection that the petitioner's transfer from Village‑Aid Department to the Basic Democracies Department was vague and it was not a clear order, therefore, the period prior to the joining Basic Democracies Department cannot be taken into consideration for computing pension. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this writ petition has been filed and its Court summoned the Account's Officer, a representative of the Accountant‑General Punjab as well as the Assistant Director, Local Government. Admittedly, the service book of the petitioner clearly shows that he was transferred from Village‑Aid Department to Basic Democracies Department. Similarly, the last pay certificate drawn also indicates and corroborates this fact that the services of the petitioner were not terminated. In similar case of one Asghar Ali while granting pension to him, the period of service rendered by him in the Village‑Aid Department was computed. The 'accounts Officer present in Court submits that they had committed error in he computing the pension of Asghar Ali. The Assistant Director, Local Government also supports the stand taken by the petitioner and states that this as a case of transfer and not the case of termination and the record on this core is also clear to substantiate the factum of transfer. After having heard the ADLG, and the Accounts Officer from A.G. Department and having perused the service record of the petitioner, it has amply proved that it was a case of transfer and not termination. An affidavit has also been sworn by the petitioner to substantiate that his services were not terminated. In addition thereto, twenty‑five years of service of the petitioner was also verified by the A.‑G. Department as continuous service and the last pay certificate drawn also indicates that it was case of continuity. Had it not been a case of transfer, the entries would have been indicated to the contrary. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed but the parties are left to bear their own costs. The Accounts Officer from the office of the A.‑G, Punjab is directed to also consider the period which the petitioner spent in Village‑Aid Department while computing the pension of the petitioner. A.A./N‑118/L. Petition accepted.