1998 PLP 613 (SCMR)
MEHR KHAN‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WAPDA, MAINWALI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 613 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Aetg. C. J. , Mamoon Kazi and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | MEHR KHAN‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WAPDA, MAINWALI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 613 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 613 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Aetg. C. J. , Mamoon Kazi and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 613 (SCMR) (MEHR KHAN‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WAPDA, MAINWALI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Asghar Hussain Sabawari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th December, 1997.
- 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has been that, at least, refund of the petitioner's salary for the period he actually performed his duties could not be justified by the Department. We, however, find the said contention to be without merit. The petitioner was well aware that his date of birth was 3‑3‑1932, yet the petitioner did not inform the concerned Authorities about the same and he continued to be in service after reaching the age of his superannuation. No doubt, it was for the Department concerned to take notice of the date of the petitioner's retirement, but notwithstanding the same, the petitioner also did not act bona fide. We have also noticed that the petition has been dismissed as barred by limitation. However, application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, but without going into this question, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration even on merits.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 31‑1‑1996 passed in Appeal No 459(R) of 1995). ‑‑‑‑Art. 49‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Age‑‑‑Petitioner having reached age of superannuation still remained serving for some time‑‑ Authority on knowledge of such fact recovered emoluments paid to petitioner between the period of his superannuation and actual retirement‑ ‑‑Petitioner's plea that at least refund of salary for the period he actually performed his duties could nor be justified by the concerned Department, was repelled by Departmental Authority and Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was found to be without merit‑‑‑Petitioner being well‑aware that his date of birth was 3‑3‑1932 did not inform concerned Authorities about the same and he continued to b: in service after reaching age of his superannuation ‑‑‑Department concerned was although required to take notice of petitioner's retirement yet petitioner also did not act bona fide‑‑‑Petitioner's appeal before Service Tribunal had been dismissed as barred by limitation‑‑‑Application for condonation of delay would be of no consequence‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th December, 1997. MAMOON KAZI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was initially appointed on 11‑2‑1953 as Assistant Lineman in the Electricity Department on work‑charge basis showing his date of birth as 3‑3‑1932. Subsequently, after coming into force of WAPDA Act, the petitioner's services alongwith others, were transferred to WAPDA. The petitioner showed the same date of birth at the time of regularisation of his service in WAPDA.
2. While the petitioner was still serving in the WAPDA, on 17‑10‑1992, the Executive Engineer, Mianwah addressed a letter to him, informing him that his date of birth was shown in the record as 1‑1‑1939. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to supply solid and authentic proof in regard to his date of birth. He was also directed to produce record of Union Council or Municipal Committee and also his school leaving certificate.
3. Although, the petitioner appears to have throughout maintained that his date of birth was 3‑3‑1932, but he did not retire on 2‑3‑1992, after attaining the age of 60 years, but he continued to remain in service. However, his case was examined by the higher authorities and he was made to retire on 1‑4‑1993. Although, pensionary benefits with effect from 2‑3‑1932 were allowed to the petitioner, but the salary paid to him for the period between 2‑3‑1932 and 31‑3‑1993 was recovered from him.
4. Being aggrieved by such action, the petitioner first approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib on 21‑3‑1995 and on rejection of his complaint, he sent his appeal to the departmental authority. The appeal remained unresponded therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 21‑11‑1995, which, has, however, been dismissed by the Tribunal as barred by time.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has been that, at least, refund of the petitioner's salary for the period he actually performed his duties could not be justified by the Department. We, however, find the said contention to be without merit. The petitioner was well aware that his date of birth was 3‑3‑1932, yet the petitioner did not inform the concerned Authorities about the same and he continued to be in service after reaching the age of his superannuation. No doubt, it was for the Department concerned to take notice of the date of the petitioner's retirement, but notwithstanding the same, the petitioner also did not act bona fide. We have also noticed that the petition has been dismissed as barred by limitation. However, application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, but without going into this question, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration even on merits. In the result, leave is refused. A.A./M‑84/S Leave refused.