2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Dr. M. Mohy‑ud‑Din Qazi,for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th October, 2003. The petitioner retired from the service of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad on 19‑3-1998 after reaching the age of superannuation His case is that since 1998 the petitioner has been approaching the authorities concerned for the grant of retirement benefits but it was firstly refused on 28‑3‑2002 and' then on 7‑10‑2002 on the ground that certain advances made to him for purchase of various articles remain unadjusted..

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid advances related to the tenure of the petitioner as Deputy Secretary 'from 1988 to 1991, the advances received by the petitioner were duly spent and the work of adjustment was the duty of the Audit Officer. He maintains that from 1988 to 1991, when he held the post in question and then from 1991 to 1998 none, pointed out that any amount of advances remained unjusted. He further submits that in fact objection as to non- adjustment, of the advances is based on the report of the audit which is otherwise unsustainable. Accordingly, a direction is sought for payment of pensionery benefits to the petitioner by declaring the orders dated 28‑3‑2002 and 7‑10‑2002 as without lawful authority:

3. It is not disputed that 'the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, has adopted the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on rule 1.8(b) of the aforesaid Pension Rules to contend that recovery from the pension of a retired employee is only permissible on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to the employer by the negligence, or fraud of a pensioner during his service. However, the proviso under clause (b) contemplates that such departmental proceedings shall not be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of the pensioner. The learned counsel submits that although the petitioner retired on 19‑3‑1998 but till date no proceedings, as contemplated by rule 1.8, have even been initiated. He ‑also relied on the "note" below the proviso to clause (b) aforesaid to contend that if the departmental proceedings are not completed within one, year after retirement of an employee, he may be allowed to draw 80% or less of full pension so as to ensure that Government loss is fully recovered from the balance. This note also contemplates that in case judicial proceedings are delayed beyond one year after retirement reduced pension may be allowed .as in the case of pensioners facing departmental proceedings. He also relied on rule 5.2 of the aforesaid rules to contend that responsibility for initiation and completion of pension papers is that of the. Head 'of Department; that action should be initiated one year before an employee is due to retire and pension papers complete in all respect six months before the date of retirement so that pension may be sanctioned a month before the date of retirement. He also relied on note below rule 5.4 of the aforesaid rules to contend that payment of pension should not be held up for want of "No Demand Certificate". The aforesaid note also contemplates that the department should, however, obtain an undertaking from the Government servant concerned that the outstanding dues if any, would be paid by him from his tension provided such demands are preferred within one ear from‑the date of his retirement (Underlining is mine).

4. As far as the merit of the objection is concerned, he submits that the so‑called adjustment was only a ministerial act and it is not even the case of the respondent‑Board that the petitioner was responsible for any defalcation. With the re‑joinder the petitioner has placed on the record letter dated 23‑10‑2002 of the 5ecretarv of the Board addressed to the petitioner, according to which the advances are made to the officer- incharge by designation and the stores are purchased with the approval of the appropriate committee. The entire record remains with the concerned `Ahalkar' and after purchases have been made the work of adjustment is that of the concerned `Ahalkar'. Therefore, alter transfer of the branch incharge or his retirement the papers are completed under the signatures of the incoming incumbent and, thus, this routine work continues.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that an amount of Rs.19,83,380 was advanced to the petitioner, from 13-8-1988 to 27-8-1997 which remains unjusted and if the petitioner satisfy the concerned authorities that it has duly been adjusted the Board will be prepared to release the retirement benefits. He submits that if, the amount of pension and gratuity is released, recovery from the petitioner will not be possible. He farther submits that the petitioner had himself submitted the pension papers only on 23‑2‑2001 and with the pension papers .he had not submitted the "No Demand Certificate" of the Finance Branch therefore, he is not entitled to the retirement benefits.

6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Under rule 1.8 (a) of the aforesaid rules the competent authority can withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or found to have been guilty of grave misconduct either Burin or after the completion of his service (Emphasis supplied). It is not the case of the respondent‑Bank that the case of the petitioner fell within the mischief of rule 1.8(a) As far as the recovery from the pension of the alleged loss is concerned, it is only permissible if an inquiry is initiated in the matter within one yea: from the (late of retirement of a pensioner. Undisputedly, till date no inquiry has been initiated in the matter. I asked the learned counsel for the Board as to what precisely "adjustment was and in reply he stated that it amounted to proper accounting for the advances as having been duly spent. It has not at all been explained in the written statement as to why, the petitioner, while in service was riot called upon to make the necessary adjustments. He left the post of Deputy Secretary somewhere in 1991 and only in response to his applications for grant of pension the so‑called deficiency was pointed out. Perusal of the statement of advances submitted by the respondent‑Board shows that these include advances made in the years 1992, 1994 and even 1997 when the petitioner was not on the relevant post. If at all the work of adjustment was outstanding the department should have taken timely action. The entire record being in possession of the branch concerned, it will be unfair, unjust, harsh and oppressive to call upon the petitioner to do the adjustment of the advances made to him from 13‑8‑1988 till 1991, a period ranging from 12 to 15 years. The pension rules being relied upon are beneficial dispensation for the retired officials and are to be seen, understood and applied m the same spirit. In fact the authorities intend to penalize the petitioner for their own default and negligence not to get the amounts adjusted during the petitioner's tenure as Deputy. Secretary. They even kept quiet for seven years till his retirement and for three years even after his retirement. The only pretext is that "No Demand Certificate" from, the Finance Branch bad not been submitted. Note 1, under rule 5.4 early states that pension should not be held up for want of "No Demand Certificate." Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the relevant "No Demand Certificates" had already been submitted by the petitioner alongwith his pension papers. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel that after the transfer of the petitioner as Deputy Secretary, the work of documentation if outstanding, was to be completed by the branch in charge concerned and this is borne out by the letter dated 23‑10‑2002 of the Secretary of the Board addressed to the petitioner.

7. For what has been stated above, I am of the view that the refusal of the respondent‑Board to sanction retirement benefits to the petitioner is plainly contrary to the aforesaid pension rules and is, therefore, declared as without lawful authority. He is accordingly directed that anticipatory pension to, the extent of 80% shall be sanctioned and released in‑ favour of the petitioner within a period of two months while as far as the remaining 20% is concerned, the competent authority shall; finalize the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four months in the light of the observations made in this judgment. No order as to costs. H.B.T./K‑284/L Order accordingly.