1994 PLP 569 (PLC)
KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' OLD‑AGE PENSION
| Citation | 1994 PLP 569 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' OLD‑AGE PENSION |
| Primary Law | Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 569 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 569 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 569 (PLC) (KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' OLD‑AGE PENSION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli for Petitioner.
- M.A. Hayee Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 33‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Date of birth of employee‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑ Question with regard to correct date of birth of employee for determination of his entitlement to pension essentially was question of fact and that question having finally been decided by competent authority on basic of relevant material available on record was not open to scrutiny in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli for Petitioner. M.A. Hayee Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th October, 1992. A challenge has been made in third writ petition to the decision dated 14‑4‑1992 of the Regional Claim Committee, Employees' Old‑Age Benefit Institution, Garden Town, Lahore.
2. The dispute in this case relates to grant of pension to the petitioner is that he is entitled to pension for the period July, 1986 to June, 1989 on the basis of his date of birth as 13‑5‑1931. The stand of the respondents is that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 13‑3‑1937 and, therefore, he was entitled to pension with effect from June, 1990 and not with effect from June, 1986. The Employees' Old‑Age Benefit Institution (hereinafter called the Institution) constituted a Committee known as the Regional Claim Committee to examine the claim of the petitioner. The Committee after due deliberation and thoroughly examining the material available before it, recorded a unanimous finding of fact that the date of birth of the petitioner was 13‑5‑1931 and on that basis the competent authority passed orders on 26‑4‑1989 for payment of pension in the sum of Rs.10,404 to the petitioner. Later the matter was re‑opened and decided against the petitioner.
3. The question whether correct date of birth of the petitioner was 13‑5‑1931 or 13‑3‑1937, is essentially a question of fact which cannot be determined in these proceedings. It is for the competent authority of the Institution to decide on the basis of material available before it as to the correct date of birth of the petitioner.
4. Be that as it may, in the instant case, the Committee, after independent application of its mind, recorded a finding of fact that the date of birth of the petitioner was 13‑5‑1931 and on that basis the disputed amount was given to, the petitioner. This order attained finality and was not open to scrutiny in view of the ratio laid down in Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407). On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be declared as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Order accordingly. Resultantly the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. H.B.T./K‑136/L Petition accepted.