Recovery of loan

2025 PLC(CS) 1559 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 358, 371-A, 423 & 474(b)State Bank of Pakistan Banking Services Corporation Staff Regulations, 2005, Regln.17(1)Pensionary benefits, calculation ofQualifying serviceTenure of serviceRequirement and considerationCounting of prior service rendered in another department towards pensionary benefitsEntitlement and scope

The issue in the present case was "whether the petitioner's prior judicial service as a Clerk from 1979 to 1984 could be counted toward his pension benefits after his employment with the State Bank of Pakistan"?

Held: Petitioner seemingly possessed a qualifying length of service for pension

This service included his initial tenure as a clerk in the court, which was a regular service in District Judiciary commencing on February 13, 1979, following his appointment under endorsement No. 1300 dated February 11, 1979, issued by the District Judge, and evidenced by the relieving orders dated April 17, 1984, and April 18, 1984

However, the State Bank of Pakistan did not factor in this prior service when calculating his benefits

Furthermore, even if an employee eligible for confirmation against a post during their probationary or ad-hoc period retired before being formally confirmed, they could not be denied confirmation or any associated benefits solely due to their retirement

The record reflected that the petitioner's previous judicial service as a clerk, from February 11, 1979, to April 18, 1984 (a total of five years, two months, and five days)

According to Arts. 358, 371-A, 423 and 474(b) of Civil Service Regulations, his previous service on ad-hoc basis with effect from 1979 to 1984 was countable to his regular service for service/pensionary benefits and other fringe benefits

Petitioner was thus entitled to claim the entire service/pensionary dues by counting his previous service, rendered in the district judiciary, to his retirement benefits

Even otherwise, under S. 474(b) of CSR petitioner's case was fully covered under the aforesaid Regulation

The respondent bank was directed to recalculate the petitioner's pension benefits, taking into account his prior service within the judicial district from 1979 to 1984

Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

2010 PLC(CS) 471 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Reglns. 17(i) & 18(iii)Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.25 & 199Constitutional petitionVoluntary retirement from service in September, 2006

Grant of dearness allowance by Bank w.e.f. 1-9-2006 at rate of 17% of monthly monetized salary of each employee as on 30-6-2006 as a separate allowance not calculable for pensionary benefits

Receipt of retirement dues by petitioners on basis of monetized salary (i.e. lump sum salary including all allowances)

20% increase in monetized salary of existing staff of Bank w.e.f. 1-6-2007 including such dearness allowance

Petitioners' prayer after having received retirement dues for merger of dearness allowance in monetized salary for calculating their retirement benefits w.e.f. June 2006 and grant of arrears accordingly

Validity

Petitioners during their tenure had not objected to grant of dearness allowance

Subsequent increase in monetized salary by 20% of existing staff would henceforth would be used as a basis. for calculation of pension, gratuity, provident fund etc.

According to Art.25 of the Constitution, all persons equally placed i.e. falling under same category or belonging to same group, would be entitled to equal treatment

Petitioners, after having severed their connections with Bank constituted a different class as compared to those still in service falling in a different category

Petitioners had not been discriminated

Petitioners had not disclosed recent increase in their pensions, thus, to such extent they had not approached the court with clean hands

No restriction could be placed on right of employer to provide additional benefits/incentives to its existing employees

Petitioners were estopped by their conduct to claim such merger after having voluntarily opted for and accepted benefits of pre-mature retirement package offered to them by Bank

High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.

2008 SCMR 1060 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 5Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Leave to appeal was granted to examine, inter alia, as to whether Collector under West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Land Act, 1964, was empowered to deal with the matter of redemption of evacuee property and whether High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of case had correctly applied the principles laid down by Supreme Court' in respect of running out of period of limitation for redemptions of evacuee property in the case reported as PLD 1986 SC 35.