2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORIYT, KARACHI Versus ABDUL TOUHEED KHAN
| Citation | 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, M. Javed Buttar and Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORIYT, KARACHI Versus ABDUL TOUHEED KHAN |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, M. Javed Buttar and Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORIYT, KARACHI Versus ABDUL TOUHEED KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Naheeda Mehboob Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 2008.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 19
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Pensionary benefits, claim for
Respondent originally was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of Auditor-General of Pakistan; he proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement for a period of one year
Before expiry of said leave, he was re-employed by the Civil Aviation Authority as Deputy Manager (Accounts) and after service of about 10 years, he finally was retired
Respondent filed constitutional petition before High Court claiming his pensionary benefits for his said service of about 10 years, which constitutional petition was allowed and authorities were directed to calculate pensionary benefits of respondent/employee in accordance with rules
Authorities filed petition for leave to appeal against order of the High Court and contended that constitutional petition filed by the employee suffered from gross laches as he cane forward with the delay of seven years after receiving his gratuity
Respondent/employee joined the service of petitioner while he was still in the service of Auditor-General of Pakistan and his leave preparatory to retirement had not yet expired
In view of the length of his service for about 10 years, High Court was justified on equitable grounds to direct petitioner/authority to grant pensionary benefits to the respondent
Appeal of employee before Service Tribunal remained pending for considerable period, when same stood abated
Question of laches, in circumstances, would not arise in the case
Impugned judgment was just and fair to which no exception could be taken. Mobeen-ul-Islam's case PLD 2006 SC 602 ref. Abdul Rehman Abbasi, Senior Legal Officer (North), CAA.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The respondent was originally an Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of Auditor-General of Pakistan who proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 13-1-1984 for a period of one year. Before the expiry of leave preparatory to retirement, he was re-employed by the Civil Aviation Authority as Deputy Manager (Accounts) in pay group (BPS-17) on 28th of October, 1984. After service of nine years, eight months and twelve days, he finally retired on 15-3-1995 from the post of Cooperative Manager Finance in pay group BPS-18. He was paid gratuity only. Therefore, he filed Constitution Petition No.D-1469 of 2006 in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi claiming his pensionary benefits for his service of about ten years. The High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15-9-2008, allowed the Constitution petition and directed the petitioner to calculate pensionary benefits of the respondent in accordance with rules as if it was one pension for both the periods of service rendered by him with the Auditor-General of Pakistan as well as Civil Aviation Authority. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the Constitution petition suffered from gross laches as the petitioner came forward with a delay of seven years after receiving his gratuity without any demur. The principle of estoppel was also attracted in this case as he had accepted and received retirement benefits without any claim for pension.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the available record. Admittedly, the respondent joined the service of petitioner while he was still in the service of Auditor-General of Pakistan and his leave preparatory to retirement had not yet expired. In view of the length of his service for about 10 years, the High Court was justified on equitable grounds, to direct the petitioner to grant pensionary benefits to the respondent. Needless to observe that his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal remained pending for a considerable period when the same stood abated in view of the law laid down by this Court in Mobeen-ul-Islam's case PLD 2006 SC
602. Therefore, the question of laches would not arise in this case. In our view, the impugned judgment is just and fair to which no exception can be taken. The other points of law raised by the learned counsel such as application of the civil service regulations to the employees of Civil Aviation Authority are left to be examined in some other appropriate case.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./D-9/SC Petition dismissed.