Voluntary Retirement Scheme

2022 PLC(CS) 1156 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.12Punjab Revised Leave Rules (1981), R. 18Voluntary retirementPension­Right to leave preparatory to retirement ("LPR"), availing of

Petitioner/civil servant applied for voluntary retirement and was ultimately retired vide retirement order after the expiry of leave preparatory to retirement ("LPR")

Petitioner applied for pension but his case was returned by Authority on the ground that his age was less than 50 years at the time of retirement as per requirement under S. 12 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973

Petitioner contended that the Amended S.12 of the Act, 1974 could not apply to his case retrospectively as his retirement order was issued prior to the date of commencement of the Amended S.12 of the Act; that the retirement order lawfully passed by the competent authority could not be recalled; that date of retirement was to be reckoned from the date of retirement order and that withholding of pension was against the fundamental right of the Petitioner

Held, that amended S.12 of the Act shall apply prospectively and shall not affect the retirement orders lawfully passed by a competent authority before the date of its commencement

Finance Department had no authority under the law to clarify, interpret, abridge or extend the right of family pension provided under S.18(2) of the Act and further regulated by the Rules of 1963

Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) could be recalled in terms of R.18 of the Rules, 1981, by the designated official therein but power so conferred was limited to the period of LPR

Said Rule it could not be applied to revoke the retirement order itself

Date of retirement order was actually the date of retirement as the right to retire/receive pension would mature on the said date

It was merely the initiation of pension which was given effect from the last date of LPR

Principle of locus poenitentiae was fully attracted in the petitioner's case as accrued right vested with the petitioner on 19/08/2020, i.e. the date of his retirement order, which was lawfully passed on the said date by the competent authority in accordance with prevailing law

Petitioner exercised his right in accordance with the applicable law at the relevant time by following the prescribed procedure and was duly granted retirement along with the benefit of availing of LPR as depicted from the retirement order, hence, he effectively retired on the date of retirement order which preceded the date of Amended S.12 of the Act

Future date regarding initiation of pension after availing of LPR which was subsequent to the date of commencement of Amended S.12 of the Act was, therefore, irrelevant for the application of the provisions of Amended S.12 of the Act as the right to retire/receive pension matured on the date of retirement which preceded the Amended S.12 of the Act

Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

2000 PLC 474 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 2-AConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 25, 199 & 212Voluntary Retirement SchemeConstitutional petition, abatement of

Grievance of petitioners who were employees of various Rice Mills under Control of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan, was that though Voluntary Retirement Scheme had been framed by Authorities in respect of Project Directors, Deputy Directors had been denied said facility and petitioners who belonged to said category had been unfairly discriminated against

Validity

Project Directors being a class apart from Deputy Project Directors, it could not be said that facilities which had been made available to Project Directors should ,also be made applicable to other categories of employees

Article 25 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) had not prohibited or forbidden reasonable classification

Corporation was a Corporation owned and controlled by Federal Government and persons serving under it had been declared to be civil servants under S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Provisions of S. 2-A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973 being applicable to case of petitioners, proceedings pending before High Court would be deemed to have been abated in view of Art. 212 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973).