1989 PLP 369 (SCMR)

Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1988. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Controller (Finance) in the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Islamabad. was retired on 27‑12‑1981 from service by the Director‑ General, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i) of sub‑regulation (1) of Regulation 3 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Employees (Retirement from Service) Regulations, 1980. In the order of retirement it was provided that if the petitioner applies for leave preparatory to retirement, which was admissible to him, his retirement shall take effect on the expiry of the leave. The petitioner duly availed of this facility and has also received all the other benefits such as provident fund, gratuity and pension etc. admissible under the Retirement Rules. However, after this Court delivered its judgment in Pakistan and others v. Public at Large and others (P L D 1987 SC 304) holding that the provision in the Service Rules authorising retirement of civil servants after 25 years service qualifying for pension was against the injunctions of Islam and directed that the authorities concerned should appropriately amend the service laws so as to bring it in conformity with the injunctions of Islam, the petitioner decided to re‑agitate the matter. Accordingly, he moved a writ petition on 13‑10‑1987 before the Lahore High Court for a declaration that the order of his retirement dated 27‑12‑1981 was ultra vires, void and mala fide and the petitioner may be declared as continuing in service of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation with all consequential benefits such as seniority, promotions, increments, arrears of pay, allowances and other monetary benefits. This petition was, however, dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who opined that the judgment of this Court in Pakistan and others v. Public at Large and others (P L D 1987 SC 304) did not affect past and closed transactions but operated prospectively only. The learned Judge also observed that the petition had been filed after more than 5 years from the date of the impugned order and that he had, in the meanwhile, already availed of leave preparatory to retirement and received all his entitlements such as provident fund, gratuity, pension etc. etc. admissible under the Retirement Rules. We have heard Sycd Riaz Ahmad Pirzada in support of this petition and Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq on behalf of the Pakistan Rroadcasting Corporation and also perused the judgment of this Court in Sardar All and others v. Muhammad Ali rTand others (P L D 1988 SC 287) wherein the effect of this Court's judgment in Pakistan and others v. Public at Large and others (P L D 1987 SC 304) has been discussed. Herein, it has been observed at page 316 of the report:‑‑ "It is clear from the foregoing analysis and interpretation of the relevant Constitutional provisions that the existing laws were to continue in full operation and effect, notwithstanding the Islamisation process. All proceedings including appeals were to be decided and concluded under the existing laws. They were to cease having effect only from the day specified by the Court in that behalf. The rights accrued under those laws by virtue of their continued operation, were not affected." These observations appear to indicate that all decisions taken before the judgment of this Court in Pakistan and others v. Public at Large and others(PLD 1987 SC 304) became operative and must be given their full effect, in? accordance with the tenor of the laws under which they were taken. In this case, moreover, moreover, the petitioner cannot be given the declaration he seeks because he has already attained the age of 60 years (on 14‑8‑1988). ??????????????????????? The result is that this petition must fail and it is, accordingly, dismissed hereby. M.A.K./L‑19/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.