Retirement

Show-Cause Notice was issued by the Respondents/Health Department to the employee after a lapse of almost three years and two months from his retirement

Question was whether after lapse of more than one year from the date of petitioner's retirement, SCN/de novo inquiry could be initiated against him or not

Respondents contended that inquiry could be initiated against an employee under R.1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1955, during or after completion of his service

Validity

Sections 1(4)(iii) & 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 ('PEEDA, 2006') stipulated that proceedings under PEEDA, 2006, could be initiated against a retired employee of government provided the same were (i) initiated against him during his service or within one year of his retirement ; and (ii) finalized not later than two years of his retirement

Time lag inserted in the said provisions of law was manifestly intended to safeguard the interest of the retired employees so that the sword of damocles should not hang upon them for an indefinite period

Proviso to R. 1.8(b) of Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1955, stipulated that no departmental proceedings would be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of the government pensioner

Rule of law required that things should be done as they were required to be done or not at all

Every person in execution of law should follow the law strictly as laid down and should not exceed the limit of law for any reasons whatsoever

High Court set aside impugned Show-Cause Notice issued by the respondent/Health Department declaring the same to be illegal and without lawful authority

Constitutional was allowed, in circumstances.

However, civil servants cannot claim their vested right to continue serving after completing 20 years of service until the age of superannuation, as it is already a part of their terms and conditions under S.13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973

Said provision ensures that they are protected and allowed to continue their service until the 20th year, unless they have been affected by the concept of misconduct

Therefore, the terms and conditions of service stipulated in the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, do not create any other rights, as interpreted by the petitioners, except those provided in the statute

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

When a civil servant acknowledges his offer letter and joins the service, he is bound by the terms and conditions highlighted in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder, therefore, law of estoppel applies, which precludes the civil servant to challenge the provisions of law, especially when S. 13 has already been considered on the touchstone of Holy Quran and Sunnah by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large" [PLD 1987 Supreme Court 304].

Plain language of S. 13(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 explicitly states that a civil servant has the right to serve up to the 20th year of his service, except in cases of misconduct

Afterward, the concept of vested right is replaced with the discretion of the competent authority in the public interest

In this context, a civil servant cannot claim to continue his service beyond the 20-year period until the age of superannuation as it is subject to conditions that require evaluation by the competent authority

Similarly, in cases of promotion, the determination of eligibility criteria is an essential administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain and policy-making of the government

Courts cannot interfere in these matters, as no vested right is granted to a government employee regarding promotion or the rules that determine his eligibility or fitness

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Competent authority of a civil servant is the best judge to determine the factors to be given preference and to what extent, per se, after due consideration of the powers highlighted in S. 13(1)(i) and Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020

Test, criteria, qualifications, eligibility, and methodology provided in the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, is based on the subjective evaluation of each case, as conducted by a committee under R. 4 (for the retirement of civil servants in BPS-16 & BPS-17 to 19) and a Retirement Board constituted under Rule 3 (for the retirement of civil servants in BPS-20 or above)

These bodies are the best judges to assess each case and determine whether a civil servant has demonstrated average performance or has obtained adverse remarks regarding his efficiency

If a civil servant has been recommended for supersession by the CSB (Central Selection Board) on two occasions, despite having some time to serve till the age of superannuation and the higher position requires a high standard on the administrative side where an inefficient civil servant is not desirable; in such cases, if the civil servant continues to serve, he would not be considered an asset but rather a burden to the exchequer

Therefore, these individuals need to be granted a secure exit through a directory retirement concept, especially when they do not fall within the purview of compulsory retirement due to misconduct

Hence, the challenged Rules were formulated while considering the dignity of civil servants, as outlined in Art. 14 of the Constitution

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Right of appeal or review as enshrined in R. 8 of the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, fulfills the constitutional requirements, which expand the principle of natural justice, well defined in our jurisprudence and the same are treated as inherent rights with underline element of fairness, both in terms of hearing as well as impartiality of the forums

Hence, the minimum requirement of Art. 10-A of the Constitution, has also been adhered to in the impugned Rules by the rulemaking authority

Such preconditions fulfill the minimum conditions of due process, fair trial and other fundamental rights protected by the Constitution

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Petitioners contended that, after accepting the voluntary return under S. 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the department could not punish the civil servant by enforcing directory retirement

Validity

Plain reading of the words used by the legislature in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, revealed that it does not preclude a civil servant to be dealt with on its departmental side, though he has gained the status of discharged from the criminal liability

Legislative intent clearly spells out from the language used whereby only a criminal liability has been avoided but, it does not mean that a person who is involved in such type of practices has been given a premium for his wrong doing so that he might continue with his services, though the effect of discharge means discharge of all liabilities

Such an argument is misplaced on the ground that when any civil servant who has voluntarily returned the proceeds of corruption, though considered as discharged from a criminal liability but, his act falls within the ambit of misconduct, against which he can be proceeded on departmental side

There is no bar for parallel proceedings against a civil servant on departmental side

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Paramount consideration for retiring a civil servant after completion of his 20 years of service is the will and choice of the competent authority as to whether it is interested to allow the civil servant to continue his service or otherwise but, the predominant factor is the public interest, which can only be evaluated by the competent authority, hence the exclusive domain of the competent authority cannot be questioned if it is based on the concept of fitness i.e. whether the particular post and position necessitate a qualified person amongst his peers having eligibility to tackle the highest skill position in the larger public interest.

Inclusion of term unbecoming of civil servant in terms of Rule 5(1)(e), though a negative phrase but an exception has been created from the definition of misconduct provided in Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, in order to protect a civil servant from a stigma and to give him a way out from the civil service with his pensionary benefits without declaring him guilty under the concept of misconduct.

Contention of petitioners was that under S. 3 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the terms and conditions of their service could not be varied to their disadvantage

Validity

Section 3 though confirmed the rights of the civil servants but the same had to be regulated under the law and it was settled that no adverse action could be taken against the civil servant, except in accordance with law

Even the impugned rules were within the framework of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the same did not create a disadvantageous position for a civil servant in any manner

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Pleasure doctrine is not based on any special prerogative of the Government but is rooted in public policy and serves the public interest

Underlying principle of the pleasure doctrine is that the public has a significant stake in the efficiency and integrity of the civil servants

Therefore, public policy necessitates that the public can demand that a civil servant who is inefficient, dishonest, corrupt, or has become a security risk should not be allowed to continue in service.

Absolute authority given under S. 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, has been regulated through the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, as such, the Rules have provided a separate remedy of appeal and review to retired servant if he is aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority

Due protection of Art. 10-A of the Constitution has been envisaged in the Rules, hence it is not justified to declare them ultra vires to the Constitution as the test laid down in different pronouncements of the Supreme Court has fully been observed while making the Rules more effective which are also need of the hour to save the Country from all those officials whose services are no more required in the public interest

Moreover, under Rule 6(6) of the Rules a complete procedure, including issuing show cause notice and affording opportunity of personal hearing, is provided, as such, a civil servant, who has been proposed for directory retirement would have full opportunity to explain his position and he cannot claim that he has been condemned unheard.

Section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, extends the authority to the President to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act

President has delegated its authority to the Prime Minister of Pakistan in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (1) of S. 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, vide SRO No.120(I)/98, dated 27-02-1998, to make rules under the Act

In this case the Prime Minister of Pakistan had promulgated the impugned Rules, hence the salient characteristics qua the rulemaking authority are the powers conferred in the statute

Second characteristic is the approval of the Government or statutory sanction which has clearly been observed as the rules have been notified through SRO No.230(I)/2020, therefore, the minimum requirements of law have been fulfilled

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, cannot be challenged by the civil servants as same are not contrary to their fundamental rights and under the Constitution no vested right is available to the civil servants to challenge this policy matter where Rules have been framed within the scope of law

Even otherwise, it is settled proposition that the competent authority i.e. the Federal Government is in a better position to settle their requirements to engage the services of a civil servant, whose services are required or otherwise in the public interest

This executive discretion cannot be interfered with

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Rules have to be applied prospectively but, the argument advanced by the learned counsel qua prospective application with the view that the Rules have to be applied after the year 2020 upon those civil servants who have been appointed after the said year is misplaced, rather it applies to all those who have completed 20 years of their service as the pre-condition of S. 13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, is completion of 20 years of service by a civil servant and, as such, the Rules are made applicable to those civil servants only

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Directory retirement is not a punishment or stigma upon the civil servant, rather the absolute authority vests with the Federal Government to consider a person to continue with his job after 20 years of his service based on certain objective criteria as laid down in the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020 and it is not a choice of the civil servant to claim exemption from the rules, which have been made by the competent authority after due consideration and subject to a transparent process including but not limited to right of hearing, evaluation, show cause notice, etc.

Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, cannot be challenged by the civil servants as same are not contrary to their fundamental rights and under the Constitution no vested right is available to the civil servants to challenge this policy matter where Rules have been framed within the scope of law

Even otherwise, it is settled proposition that the competent authority i.e. the Federal Government is in a better position to settle their requirements to engage the services of a civil servant, whose services are required or otherwise in the public interest

This executive discretion cannot be interfered with

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

When a civil servant acknowledges his offer letter and joins the service, he is bound by the terms and conditions highlighted in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder, therefore, law of estoppel applies, which precludes the civil servant to challenge the provisions of law, especially when S. 13 has already been considered on the touchstone of Holy Quran and Sunnah by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large" [PLD 1987 Supreme Court 304].

Rules have to be applied prospectively but, the argument advanced by the learned counsel qua prospective application with the view that the Rules have to be applied after the year 2020 upon those civil servants who have been appointed after the said year is misplaced, rather it applies to all those who have completed 20 years of their service as the pre-condition of S. 13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, is completion of 20 years of service by a civil servant and, as such, the Rules are made applicable to those civil servants only

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Directory retirement is not a punishment or stigma upon the civil servant, rather the absolute authority vests with the Federal Government to consider a person to continue with his job after 20 years of his service based on certain objective criteria as laid down in the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020 and it is not a choice of the civil servant to claim exemption from the rules, which have been made by the competent authority after due consideration and subject to a transparent process including but not limited to right of hearing, evaluation, show cause notice, etc.

However, civil servants cannot claim their vested right to continue serving after completing 20 years of service until the age of superannuation, as it is already a part of their terms and conditions under S.13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973

Said provision ensures that they are protected and allowed to continue their service until the 20th year, unless they have been affected by the concept of misconduct

Therefore, the terms and conditions of service stipulated in the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, do not create any other rights, as interpreted by the petitioners, except those provided in the statute

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Contention of petitioners was that under S. 3 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the terms and conditions of their service could not be varied to their disadvantage

Validity

Section 3 though confirmed the rights of the civil servants but the same had to be regulated under the law and it was settled that no adverse action could be taken against the civil servant, except in accordance with law

Even the impugned rules were within the framework of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the same did not create a disadvantageous position for a civil servant in any manner

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Petitioners contended that, after accepting the voluntary return under S. 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the department could not punish the civil servant by enforcing directory retirement

Validity

Plain reading of the words used by the legislature in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, revealed that it does not preclude a civil servant to be dealt with on its departmental side, though he has gained the status of discharged from the criminal liability

Legislative intent clearly spells out from the language used whereby only a criminal liability has been avoided but, it does not mean that a person who is involved in such type of practices has been given a premium for his wrong doing so that he might continue with his services, though the effect of discharge means discharge of all liabilities

Such an argument is misplaced on the ground that when any civil servant who has voluntarily returned the proceeds of corruption, though considered as discharged from a criminal liability but, his act falls within the ambit of misconduct, against which he can be proceeded on departmental side

There is no bar for parallel proceedings against a civil servant on departmental side

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, extends the authority to the President to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act

President has delegated its authority to the Prime Minister of Pakistan in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (1) of S. 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 vide SRO No.120(I)/98, dated 27-02-1998, to make rules under the Act

In this case the Prime Minister of Pakistan had promulgated the impugned Rules, hence the salient characteristics qua the rulemaking authority are the powers conferred in the statute

Second characteristic is the approval of the Government or statutory sanction which has clearly been observed as the rules have been notified through SRO No.230(I)/2020, therefore, the minimum requirements of law have been fulfilled

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Inclusion of term unbecoming of civil servant in terms of Rule 5(1)(e), though a negative phrase but an exception has been created from the definition of misconduct provided in Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, in order to protect a civil servant from a stigma and to give him a way out from the civil service with his pensionary benefits without declaring him guilty under the concept of misconduct.

Absolute authority given under S. 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, has been regulated through the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, as such, the Rules have provided a separate remedy of appeal and review to retired servant if he is aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority

Due protection of Art. 10-A of the Constitution has been envisaged in the Rules, hence it is not justified to declare them ultra vires to the Constitution as the test laid down in different pronouncements of the Supreme Court has fully been observed while making the Rules more effective which are also need of the hour to save the Country from all those officials whose services are no more required in the public interest

Moreover, under Rule 6(6) of the Rules a complete procedure, including issuing show cause notice and affording opportunity of personal hearing, is provided, as such, a civil servant, who has been proposed for directory retirement would have full opportunity to explain his position and he cannot claim that he has been condemned unheard.

Right of appeal or review as enshrined in R. 8 of the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, fulfills the constitutional requirements, which expand the principle of natural justice, well defined in our jurisprudence and the same are treated as inherent rights with underline element of fairness, both in terms of hearing as well as impartiality of the forums

Hence, the minimum requirement of Art. 10-A of the Constitution, has also been adhered to in the impugned Rules by the rulemaking authority

Such preconditions fulfill the minimum conditions of due process, fair trial and other fundamental rights protected by the Constitution

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Competent authority of a civil servant is the best judge to determine the factors to be given preference and to what extent, per se, after due consideration of the powers highlighted in S. 13(1)(i) and Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020

Test, criteria, qualifications, eligibility, and methodology provided in the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, is based on the subjective evaluation of each case, as conducted by a committee under R. 4 (for the retirement of civil servants in BPS-16 & BPS-17 to 19) and a Retirement Board constituted under Rule 3 (for the retirement of civil servants in BPS-20 or above)

These bodies are the best judges to assess each case and determine whether a civil servant has demonstrated average performance or has obtained adverse remarks regarding his efficiency

If a civil servant has been recommended for supersession by the CSB (Central Selection Board) on two occasions, despite having some time to serve till the age of superannuation and the higher position requires a high standard on the administrative side where an inefficient civil servant is not desirable; in such cases, if the civil servant continues to serve, he would not be considered an asset but rather a burden to the exchequer

Therefore, these individuals need to be granted a secure exit through a directory retirement concept, especially when they do not fall within the purview of compulsory retirement due to misconduct

Hence, the challenged Rules were formulated while considering the dignity of civil servants, as outlined in Art. 14 of the Constitution

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Paramount consideration for retiring a civil servant after completion of his 20 years of service is the will and choice of the competent authority as to whether it is interested to allow the civil servant to continue his service or otherwise but, the predominant factor is the public interest, which can only be evaluated by the competent authority, hence the exclusive domain of the competent authority cannot be questioned if it is based on the concept of fitness i.e. whether the particular post and position necessitate a qualified person amongst his peers having eligibility to tackle the highest skill position in the larger public interest.

Plain language of S. 13(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 explicitly states that a civil servant has the right to serve up to the 20th year of his service, except in cases of misconduct

Afterward, the concept of vested right is replaced with the discretion of the competent authority in the public interest

In this context, a civil servant cannot claim to continue his service beyond the 20-year period until the age of superannuation as it is subject to conditions that require evaluation by the competent authority

Similarly, in cases of promotion, the determination of eligibility criteria is an essential administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain and policy-making of the government

Courts cannot interfere in these matters, as no vested right is granted to a government employee regarding promotion or the rules that determine his eligibility or fitness

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Pleasure doctrine is not based on any special prerogative of the Government but is rooted in public policy and serves the public interest

Underlying principle of the pleasure doctrine is that the public has a significant stake in the efficiency and integrity of the civil servants

Therefore, public policy necessitates that the public can demand that a civil servant who is inefficient, dishonest, corrupt, or has become a security risk should not be allowed to continue in service.

Appellant sought modification of his retirement order issued on the basis of superannuation to order for retirement on medical invalidation basis

Contention of appellant was that he was declared as medically invalid prior to his date of superannuation, therefore, instead of issuing retirement order on the basis of superannuation the same should have been issued on medical grounds

Validity

For retirement of the appellant on medical ground basis, an order to that effect by the competent authority was required to be passed by application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, which order had not been passed till the date of superannuation as the report of Medical Superintendent to provide information of countersigning/confirming it by Director General Health Services was awaited and the same was received after the appellant had already stood retired on superannuation

By such time, the competent authority had also become functus officio

Retirement order with retrospective effect could not have been passed on the basis of medical invalidation when the appellant had earlier stood retired on the basis of superannuation

No ground to interfere in the order passed by Single Judge of High Court was made out

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed.

Once an order of retirement from service of officer was issued, the same cannot be re-opened in ordinary circumstances being past and closed transaction to which finality is attached.

Petitioner-employee was appointed on daily wages basis and in compliance of order of Supreme Court his service was regularized with effect from the date of his first appointment

Contention of employee was that he was entitled for pensionary benefits after including period of daily wages employment in his regular service

Validity

Right to claim pension was a right connected with the tenure of service which had been served by an employee in order to make him eligible for pension

Rendering of qualifying service was a prerequisite for claiming pension

Unless an employee had rendered minimum qualifying service he could not become entitled to claim superannuation pension or any other privilege that was attached with pensionary rights

Employee had twenty eight years' service to his credit which was qualifying length of service for superannuation pension

Contingent period of petitioner had already been brought on normal budget by regularizing his previous service by the order of Supreme Court which had entitled him to entire twenty eight years' service benefits

If an employee, who during the period of probationary/ad-hoc service was eligible to be confirmed against any post, had retired from service before being confirmed then he should not merely for such retirement be refused confirmation to such post or any benefit accrued therefrom

Employee was appointed on daily wages basis against a substantive post and his daily wages employment had been converted into regular service with retrospective effect

Previous service of employee was countable to his regular service for the purpose of service/pensionary benefits and other fringe benefits, in circumstances

Petitioner was entitled to claim entire twenty eight years' service/pensionary dues by counting his previous service for the purpose of retiring/superannuation benefits

Respondents were directed to include daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular for the purpose of service dues and other allied pensionary benefits

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Civil servant has a fundamental right to be promoted even after his retirement through awarding pro-forma promotion provided his right of promotion accrued during his service and his case for promotion could not be considered for promotion for no fault of his own and he is retired on attaining the age of superannuation without any shortcoming on his part pertaining to deficiency in length of service or in the form of inquiry and departmental action so taken against his right of promotion.

Name of petitioner-employee was placed before Selection Board for promotion but he was deferred and reached to the age of superannuation

Contention of department was that competent officers could be promoted to undertake the responsibilities

Validity

Petitioner remained on major administrative posts in different departments till his retirement

Posting on any assignment was within the domain of government

If government did not post the employee on challenging assignment, he could not be blamed

Pick and choose policy had been adopted by the government in posting of officers of their choice

Objection with regard to non-posting on challenging assignment could not be attributed to the employee

Civil servant whose promotion had been deferred was to be considered as soon as the reason on the basis of which deferment took place ceased to exist

Deferment by itself referred to certain shortcomings which in due course of time when fulfilled the officer should be re-considered for promotion and was allowed promotion with effect from the date when he was deferred

Selection Board remained stuck up with some report held from 3rd March, 2008 to 24th March, 2008 but thereafter employee was promoted to BPS-21 in the year 2010 and said report was considered and ignored

Selection Board had not conducted itself in the manner required under the law

Employee though had retired from service but his non-promotion had affected his privileges and pension

Employee could be considered for promotion even after retirement

Respondents were directed to place the case of employee again before the Selection Board for consideration for promotion and if cleared be allowed promotion from the date he was lastly deferred

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Contention of employee was that he was entitled for payment of pensionary benefits with effect from the date of his first appointment

Validity

Employee was initially appointed on fixed pay and subsequently his services were regularized

Petitioner-employee after being regularized in service had become entitled to be paid pensionary benefits from the date of his first appointment

Temporary and officiating service followed by confirmation would be counted for pension or gratuity

When contract employee was absorbed into regular employment with no break in his service, period of contract employment had to be considered for counting length of service for pensionary benefits

Department was directed by the High Court to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner-employee from the date of his first appointment

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Pensionary benefits were Fundamental Right of civil servant which could not be denied on mere wishes and whims of the Authority

Impugned order had been passed after retirement of the employee which was without lawful authority

Authority was directed to do the needful for payment of salary and pensionary benefits to the petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Employee had retired on attaining age of superannuation and had submitted all the required pension papers for finalization of his pension case

Pensionary benefits had been withheld without assigning any reason and providing opportunity of hearing to the employee

Inquiry had been initiated after considerable period from retirement

If disciplinary action was initiated against employee whiich remained inconclusive during course of his service and he retired on attaining age of superannuation then unconcluded action would abate and employee would be entitled to pensionary benefits

No inquiry was pending when employee was in service and action had been taken by the Bank after his retirement

If element of truth was found in the allegation then same must be brought to the notice of employee and opportunity be afforded to explain his position

Delayed initiation of disciplinary action would render legitimacy of action doubtful and liable to be set aside

Action of the Bank by not releasing pensionary benefits to the employee was against the law having no legal effect

Unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing payment of pensionary/ retirement benefits were not desirable

Non-finalization of pensionary benefits within the prescribed period would amount to criminal negligence

Such lethargic action of Bank officials was against the human dignity

Bank having failed to justify the withholding of pensionary benefits of its employee, was directed to release the pension/pensionary/retiring benefits to the employee within thirty days

Constitutional petition was allowed iaccordingly.

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Employee, in the present case, was serving as Officer Grade-1 at the time of his retirement and he was posted as Branch Manager

Employee was not serving as "workman" at the time of his retirement

Mere designation was not sufficient to determine as to whether a person was "workman" or not rather duties being performed by him were the determining factor

Nothing was on record that employee was performing duties of manual or clerical nature

Branch Manager was considered to be a supervisory officer and duties being performed by him being of managerial nature could not be dubbed as "workman"

When employee did not fall within the category of "workman", provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to him

Grievance petition before the Labour Court was not competent as employee was not workman at the time of filing of the same

Impugned judgments passed by the courts below were set aside and grievance petition was dismissed

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Contention of employee was that despite fulfilment of eligibility criteria he was not called for interview for promotion

Validity

Government servant could not ask for issuance of call letter for interview for promotion after his retirement

Retirement from service did not debar from promotion but when employee had not appeared for interview or was not called for the same by the competent authority to adjudge his eligibility for promotion, he could not claim vested right in his favour with just announcement of promotion policy

Nothing was available in the promotion policy that all persons eligible on that day would stand promoted rather same was subject to suitability and availability of vacant posts

Nothing was on record as to whether any post for promotion of employee was available at the relevant time and present employee was only suitable person for promotion against the said post

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Ex-employee was awarded penalty of reduction in time-scale by two steps for two years along with proportionate recovery in another inquiry before retirement

Contention of the petitioner was that ex-employee could not be dismissed from service after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and the pensionary and other financial benefits of the said employee could not be withheld

Plea of the authorities was that the ex-employee was employee of Electric Supply Company, therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional petition

Validity

Late employee was employed in WAPDA and in fact was proceeded against under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 and the Authorities did not place on record any order whereby the late employee was absorbed as a regular employee in Electric Supply Company and had to be dealt with accordingly

High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional petition for the reason that the said employee was an employee of WAPDA and not that of Electric Supply Company

All pending inquiries against an officer abated on retirement of the said officer

High Court directed the authorities to pay the legal heirs of the late employee all pensionary benefits under the enabling rules of the matter after deducting the penalty awarded to the late employee before his retirement

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Remedy of appeal being available to the civil servant under Civil Servants Appeal Rules, 1977, order of retirement could be assailed under the said Rules

Intra-court appeal was not maintainable which was dismissed being not competent.

Petitioner who was retired vide notification after attaining age of superannuation, had challenged said notification of retirement alleging that his date of birth had been wrongly recorded in his Service Book

Date of birth as recorded, on the basis of which the petitioner was retired from service was 15-1-1952, while the petitioner had claimed his date of birth as 15-1-1956

Petitioner had served more than 40 years in the Police Department, but had not timely applied for correction of his date of birth as recorded

Petitioner had himself applied for issuance of duplicate copy of his Matriculation Certificate and upon his application, the Board of Education, verified his date of birth as 15-1-1952

Petitioner raised dispute regarding the correction of his date of birth before competent Authority, just less than a one month's time before his retirement

As per latest verification issued by the Board of Education, petitioner's date of birth was 15-1-1952 and that verification had been issued after holding an inquiry

Unless any contrary conclusion drawn by the Board of Education, was brought on record, said verification could not be ignored as the most relevant and competent Authority/Institution was the Board

If the date of birth 15-1-1956, as contended by the petitioner, was considered correct, then his recruitment/induction in the department would be in 15 years age, while according to statutory provision, no person could be inducted into service, who was found less than 18 years of age

No illegality was in the impugned judgment of Service Tribunal

No substantial question of law of public importance was involved in the petition for leave to appeal, which was dismissed, in circumstances.