2012 PLP 1914 (SCMR)
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1914 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Khilji Arif Hussain and Tariq Parvez, JJ |
| Parties | FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1914 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1914 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Khilji Arif Hussain and Tariq Parvez, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1914 (SCMR) (FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court along with Ehsan Ahmed and Muhammad Khalid, Section Officers for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 5-1-2012 passed in Appeals Nos.888(R)CS/2011 to 890(R)CS/2011, 912 to 915, 922 to 925, 930 to 934, 1166, 1265, 1416 to 1420, 1455, 1575 and 1794(R)CS/2011).
Arts. 212(3) & 25
Entitlement to equal relief
Two pensioners were granted increase on their commuted pension by the High Court and Supreme Court
Federal Service Tribunal in view of Art.25 of the Constitution, which guaranteed equal treatment to all, granted same relief to the pensioners in the present case (respondents)
Pensioners, in the present case, had to be treated at par with the pensioners in whose favour decision had been taken by the High Court and Supreme Court
In absence of any reasonable classification, no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal
No question of public importance within the meaning of Art.212(3) of the Constitution had been pointed out
Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed in circumstances, and leave was refused. Akram ul Haq Alvi v. Joint Secretary (R-II) Government of Pakistan, Finance Division, Islamabad and others Civil Appeal No.254-L of 2011 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
The listed petitions have been filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for leave to appeal against judgment dated 5-1-2012, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad; relevant paras, therefrom are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "
2. The issue has been resolved in that judgment. However, the objection of the respondents is that in the said appeals Finance Division was not a party. Today we have heard the Finance Division also. Two persons namely Mr. A.A. Zuberi and Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi had filed Writ Petition in the High Court and had succeeded in getting increase on the commuted pension. Their appeals in the Hon'ble Supreme Court were dismissed as time barred. It means that the judgment of the High Court had attained finality. The two pensioners were granted increase on the commuted pension. Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees equal treatment to all. When two pensioners had been granted increase it shall have to be granted to other pensioners also. Thus the judgment of the Tribunal, mentioned above, has relevance when read in the light of the judgment of the High Court. Relevant part of the judgment of the Tribunal is as under:- "
9. In the light of judgments of the Lahore High Court confirmed by the apex Court and the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal we accept the appeals. The respondents are directed to determine the pension of the appellants from the date of restoration of their commuted pension at the rate at which they were drawing 50% remaining pension. The arrears shall also be paid to them. It is also clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim arrears for the period prior to restoration of their commuted pension."
3. In the above circumstances, we find that present cases are similar to the one decided by the Tribunal on the strength of the judgment of the High Court, confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We accordingly hold that appellants are entitled to increase in their commuted pension in the same manner. Appeals are allowed."
2. When we have inquired from the learned counsel as to whether in view of the principles laid down by this Court under Article 25 of the Constitution as to why the respondents should not be treated at par with the employees named in the above para for the purposes of getting relief, he could not answer satisfactorily except saying that in another judgment announced by this Court in "Akram ul Haq Alvi v. Joint Secretary (R-II), Government of Pakistan, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (Civil Appeal No.254-L of 2011)", it has been held that the petitioners shall not be entitled for increase on the commuted pension. We failed to understand the distinction, which the learned counsel wanted to create in view of the judgment relied upon.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and having gone through the operative paras of the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that as far as the respondents are concerned, they have to be treated at par with the employees in whose favour decision has been taken by the High Court as well as by this Court. Therefore, in absence of any reasonable classification, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment.
4. Additionally, no question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been pointed out.
5. Accordingly, the listed petitions are dismissed and leave refused. MWA/F-9/SC Petition dismissed.