1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BASHIR AHMAD KHAN Versus COMMANDANT, DESERT RANGERS, HEADQUARTER, BAGHDADUL JADID and others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD KHAN Versus COMMANDANT, DESERT RANGERS, HEADQUARTER, BAGHDADUL JADID and others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Munir A. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BASHIR AHMAD KHAN Versus COMMANDANT, DESERT RANGERS, HEADQUARTER, BAGHDADUL JADID and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA. Farani for Petitioner.
- M.S. Iqbal Chughtai for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th July, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 212‑‑‑Pension and retirement‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Employee was a civil servant and his case with regard to pension and retirement related to terms and conditions of service‑‑‑Remedy of employee, was before Service Tribunal as jurisdiction of High Court was barred under Art. 212 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑Employee after availing remedy of departmental representation or appeal, as the case may be, could challenge order of Authorities before Tribunal, which would decide the matter on merits‑‑ Constitutional petition, in such a case was not competent.
Judgment & Decree
In this Constitutional petition the petitioner has called in question the legality of order dated 24‑9‑1988 passed by the departmental authority for cancellation of earlier order through which the petitioner was retired after completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension on the ground that he as a matter of fact had not completed 25 years service qualifying for pension. The case of the departmental authority was that in suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of arrears of pay the suit was dismissed regarding the pay for the period from 1967 to 1977 being barred by time, and, therefore, the said period could not be treated as a period for which he had qualified for pension. Their case was that since for the said period the petitioner was found not entitled to the pay, therefore, the same was not to be counted for working out the amount of pension due to him.
2. The case of the petitioner on the other hand was that the suit for the recovery of arrears of pay for the said period was not dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not qualify for the payment of the said pay but the same was dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by time, therefore, the department had no right to exclude the said period from the period of 25 years service as the petitioner was held to be entitled to the pay for the said period but the remedy to recover the same was held tote barred under the Limitation Act.
3. Be that as it may, the petitioner is a civil servant and since his case is that according to the terms and conditions of the service the said period was to be counted towards 25 years service qualifying for pension, therefore, the impugned order was illegal as he was not liable to serve further to get retirement after completion ,of 25 years service qualifying for pension, therefore, his remedy is before the Service Tribunal establishment under the Service Tribunal Act and the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The petitioner may after avail of the remedy of departmental representation or appeal as the case may be, challenge the impugned order before the Service Tribunal in which he may raise all the points which he wants to raise including the one noted above which shall be decided by the Service Tribunal on merits.
4. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./B‑109/L Petition dismissed.