2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant revision petition the petitioner/defendants have called in question the legality and propriety of judgment/decree dated 05-9-2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit whereby the learned 1st appellate court has accepted the civil 1st appeal of the present respondent/plaintiff and has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in her favour and against the present petitioners.

2. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the present respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief for recovery of pension amount of her deceased husband against the defendants/present petitioners in the trial court claiming that her husband namely Mir Gul Shah was appointed against the post of painter in Pak. PWD as a work charge employee in the year 1961 as at that time Pak. PWD Department was performing the duties of maintenance of Gilgit Airport. In the year 1965 another institution namely Airport Development Authority (ADA) was established to look after the maintenance work of Gilgit Airport and services of husband of respondent/plaintiff and other employees were transferred to Airport Development Authority (ADA) and the husband of the present respondent/plaintiff opted to get pay according to Government pay scales. In the year, 1986 services of husband of respondent/plaintiff and other employees were transferred to Civil Aviation Authority with the stipulation that they will get full pensionery benefits from the respondents. On 01.5.1991, the husband of the plaintiff/respondent retired from service of C.A.A after performing his longstanding duties as painter. Accordingly, the husband of plaintiff/respondent was entitled to get pensionery benefits but the petitioners/defendants did not pay the monthly pension and other pensionery benefits to her husband on one pretext or the other which forced the respondent/plaintiff to file a civil suit in the trial court.

3. The present petitioners being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing their joint written statement in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and on facts the averments made in the plaint have been repudiated by the petitioners/defendants by asserting that since the husband of the respondent/plaintiff was appointed against the post of painter on temporary basis, therefore, he is entitled for getting monthly pension and other monetary benefits.

4. In the light of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial court has framed as many as 15 issues including issue of relief.

5. After framing of issues the learned trial court directed the parties to produce their evidence as they wish to adduce. Accordingly the respondent/plaintiff got recorded her statement through her attorney namely Malik Shah on 20-8-2013 and also produced one oral witness namely M. Aslam. The respondent/plaintiff has also produced documentary evidence Exh-P/1 to P/7. Likewise the defendants/ petitioners got recorded their statement through their departmental representative namely Nasir Khan Khatak on 11-9-2013 but the petitioners/defendants did not produce any oral evidence. However, the petitioners/ defendants have produced some documentary evidence in the trial court.

6. On the conclusion of trial the learned trial after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties had dismissed the suit of the present respondent/plaintiff vide judgment/decree dated 07-11-2013. The present respondent/ plaintiff had filed civil 1st appeal in the court of learned District Judge Gilgit against the above mentioned judgment of trial court which was assigned to the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit for disposal. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment/decree dated 05-9-2014 has allowed the appeal of the present respondent/ plaintiff and suit was decreed in her favour, hence this revision petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court is contrary to law and facts of the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the husband of respondent was appointed against the post of painter purely on temporary basis in Pak PWD and his services were transferred to CAA in 1986 and he has retired in the year of 1991. He has served in Civil Aviation Authority just for 5 years, therefore he is not entitled for pensionery benefits and the learned 1st appellate court has wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff which may be set aside in the interest of justice.

8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners and supported the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court by contending that since the husband of the plaintiff has been serving in Pak PWD, ADA and C.A.A from 1961 to 1991, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for getting pension. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that husband of the respondent retired on 1st May, 1991 after completing 30 years service, hence the husband of respondent/ plaintiff was entitled to get pensionery benefits and the learned 1st appellate court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff, which may be maintained.

9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Admittedly the husband of the present respondent/plaintiff was appointed, as work charge painter by the Pak. PWD in the year 1961 as at that time, Pak. PWD Department was responsible for the maintenance of Gilgit Airport. Later on this responsibility was shifted to Airport Development Authority ( ADA) in the year of 1965 and services of late husband of the respondent/plaintiff and other employee were transferred to ADA, who performed his duties as painter in the Airport Development Authority. In the year 1986, husband of the respondent/ plaintiff and other maintenance staff were absorbed in the Civil Aviation Authority.

11. Record reveals that the husband of the present respondent/plaintiff had been performing his duties regularly from 1961 to 1991 without any break in his service and has completed 30 years service in Pak PWD, ADA and Civil Aviation Authority as such the husband of the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to get the pensionery benefits from petitioners/department. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that if the government servant without break continuously remains in service, then he has the right that the same be counted towards pay, pension and promotion. Furthermore, some colleagues of husband of respondent/plaintiff namely Abdul Manan, Talib Hussain and L.Rs of Shah Nawaz were also not granted pension by the present petitioners/defendants on the same ground. Accordingly they had also approached to the Civil Court and their suits were decreed by learned trial court and 1st appellate court which were maintained up to the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan as evident from the judgment passed by the this court in Civil Revision No.74/2015 on 16-3-2017 and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court dated 07-9-2017. The case of the present respondent/plaintiff is identical to the cases of the above named persons; hence, the respondent is also entitled to get pensionery benefits of her deceased husband namely Mir Gul Shah.

12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. Resultantly this revision petition having no force stands dismissed with no order as to costs File. SA/199/GB Revision dismissed.