Civil Service Regulations

Petitioner (retired regular government employee) filed constitutional petition seeking the period of his employment to be counted from the date of his appointment on contract basis towards his pensionary benefits in consonance with Art. 371-A of Civil Service Regulations (CSR)

Validity

No doubt, the service rendered by an employee on contract basis can be counted for pensionary benefits but it does not mean that it shall be added to make the deficiency good towards completion of qualifying service for pension, which is sine qua non for holding an employee entitled for pensionary benefits

Service rendered on contract basis followed by regularization could only be counted for pensionary benefits provided the employee has had qualifying service of ten years to his credit

Thus, the counting of service temporary or contractual for pensionary benefits, could not be interpreted in a manner, which tantamount to completing the qualifying service of ten year which is otherwise essential for pensionary benefits

The words 'add' and 'count' are neither synonyms nor antonyms of each other rather both are intransitive nouns having their own meaning

Service rendered on contract followed by regularization could only be counted for pensionary benefits provided the civil servant has completed qualifying ten years' service independently

Thus, the contention of petitioner for addition of his service rendered on contractual side in the service rendered by him after his regularization for pensionary benefits was misconceived

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Public Service Commission advertised 13 posts of Lecturer Political Science; petitioner applied for the post and after qualifying the written testhe was placed at Serial No. 1 of the waiting list

Petitioner claimed that the department had withheld 10 posts of Lecturer Political Science at the time of issuance of advertisement, as such, Public Service Commission may be directed to appoint the petitioner

Validity

Petitioner in order to prove his claim regarding withheld posts had relied upon a notification which showed that the service of different ad hoc appointees had been extended for further six months but it related to those ad hoc appointees who had been adjusted against the lien

Contention of the petitioner was misconceived and misconstrued

Writ petition was dismissed.

Case before Supreme Appellate Court related to pensionary benefits of a Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court who had passed away after serving more than six months but before completing one year of service

Held; permanent judges under Regln.474(b) of Civil Service Regulations were entitled to receive proportionate pension at the rate of 17.5% per annum of each year and the period of service above 6 months was to be reckoned as 1 year of service of pension

Widow of the Judge of Supreme Appellate Court was entitled for family pension

Government of Gilgit-Baltistan was directed to take up the case with Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan Council for grant of family pension

Case was adjourned for a date in office for compliance report.

Service Tribunal, which converted respondent's dismissal from service into compulsory retirement, directed the appellant-employer to proceed in the matter of respondent's pension in accordance with the provisions of Regln. 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations ("CSR")and finalize the issue of his pensionary benefits within a period of three months

Legality

Provisions of Regulation No.371-A of CSR made no mention of payment of pension to an employee who had rendered only 13 years of service

Qualifying service for receipt of pension was 25 years which qualifying service had not been rendered by the respondent

In such circumstances the Service Tribunal came to the incorrect conclusion that respondent's case fell within the parameters of Regulation No.371-A of CSR having more than 10 years of service and was therefore entitled to pension

Said conclusion was not only unsupported by the record but also by the Regulation

Impugned order of the Tribunal being unsustainable on facts as well as law was set aside with the direction that the respondent was only entitled to a gratuity payment in the sum of Rs.124,000

Appeal was allowed.

Department moved an application for rejection of said petition which was dismissed by the Labour Court but Labour Appellate Court Tribunal accepted the said application and rejected the grievance petition being not maintainable

Validity

Employee started efforts for change in his date of birth few months prior to his retirement which was an afterthought

Matter with regard to correction in the date of birth of an employee was part of terms and conditions of service and could not be resorted to through a civil suit

Civil servant could not seek alteration in his date of birth at the verge of his retirement or otherwise through a suit

Date of birth once recorded in the service book could not be altered unless an application for the same was moved by the employee within a period of two years from the date his service book was opened

Employee could not explain inordinate delay in seeking correction in his date of birth at the time of joining the service

Constitutional petition was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances.

Civil servant was retired from service after completing 31 years, 11 months and 14 days but he was given pension for 31 years

Plea raised by civil servant was that he was entitled to pensionary benefits for 32 years of service, as only 17 days were short towards completion of 32 years

Validity

Shortage of period, under Regln.423(1) of Civil Service Regulations, not exceeding six months had become automatically condoned

Shortage exceeding six months was also condonable by competent authority, provided the conditions under Regln.423(2) of Civil Service Regulations were fulfilled

Shortage of 17 days' relating to civil servant should not have been disputed by authorities, therefore, Supreme Court allowed the appeal with costs throughout

Appeal was allowed.

Plea raised by appellant was that although he was employed in an organization established by a resolution but status of its employees was at par with that of government employees and was. entitled to pensionary benefits

Validity

Civil Service Regulations might not stricto senso be applicable to employees of all Government controlled bodies, organizations, corporations and institutions rather the Regulations were applicable either to civil servants who were governed by Civil Servants Act, 1973, or to employees of the institution, who had been awarded status of civil servant in terms of S.2 (b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, in respect of their terms and conditions of service

Service Tribunal proceeding on assumption that employees of statutory bodies or corporations or companies incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984, controlled by Government were not civil servants as envisaged under S.2 (b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, found appellant not entitled to claim pensionary benefits admissible to Government servants

Position of employees of National Institute of Science and Technology Education was different to that of the employees of Government controlled organizations, who were awarded status of civil servant by virtue of S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, for a limited purpose to provide them remedy of appeal before Service Tribunal in respect of their terms and conditions of service

Pensionary benefits were admissible to appellant, under the relevant rules subject to Civil Service Regulation No.371-A

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was set aside

Appeal was allowed.

Pension was intended to assist a retired civil servant in providing for his daily wants so long he is alive, in consideration of his past services

Benefit had been extended in Pakistan to the widows and the dependent children of the deceased civil servants

Right and extent to claim pension depended upon the terms of the relevant statute under which it had been granted

Under Art. 470 of Civil Service Regulations, full pension was not to be given as a matter of course unless the service rendered had been duly approved

If the service had not been thoroughly satisfactory, the Authority sanctioning the pension was empowered to make such reduction

Such power was exercisable only before pension was actually sanctioned.

Fresh initiation of disciplinary proceedings for imposing penalty on employee after his retirement from service on attaining age of superannuation

Penalty of compulsory retirement from service earlier imposed on employee was set aside by Service Tribunal with the observations that authority would be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law

Authority after retirement of employee from service on attaining age of superannuation issued him charge-sheet stating that if allegations were established, then he would be liable to one or more major or minor penalties as mentioned in R.4 of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978

Validity

None of such penalties could be imposed through an administrative order with retrospective effect

Article 471-A of Civil Service Regulations and Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency- and Discipline) Rules, 1978, provide that employee of WAPDA could not be proceeded against after retirement from service

Supreme Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned judgment to the extent of granting permission to authority to take fresh disciplinary proceedings against employee.

Contention of petitioners was that Tribunal had not granted them equitable relief, thus, they had been discriminated as employees of other Departments of Government had been allowed such benefit under orders of Supreme Court; and Tribunal while passing impugned judgment had not agreed with interpretation of law made in its other judgment finding National Tariff Commission to be an attached Department of Ministry of Commerce and not a corporate body, which judgment had attained finality having not been challenged

Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider such contention.

Fresh initiation of disciplinary proceedings for imposing penalty on employee after his retirement from service on attaining age of superannuation

Penalty of compulsory retirement from service earlier imposed on employee was set aside by Service Tribunal with the observations that authority would be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law

Principles.

Grievance of civil servants was that after discontinuation of the secretariat/personal allowance, some of the civil servants had been paid the allowance and they were discriminated

­Service Tribunal allowed appeals filed by the civil servants and directed the authorities to grant them the allowance

Validity

Case had been rightly decided by the Service Tribunal in the light of S.3 of Secretariat Allowance (Recessions of Orders etc.) Ordinance, 2000, as it was found that the other civil servants had been continuously paid the secretairat/personal allowances up to 1-12-2001 and the allowances already paid to the other civil servants under S.2(2) of Secretairat Allowance (Recession of Orders etc.) Ordinance, 2000, were also saved

Service Tribunal had also rightly found that the case of aggrieved civil servants was also covered by S.3 of Secretairat Allowance (Recession of Orders etc.), Ordinance, 2000, and refusal of Competent Authority to grant them allowance was a treatment which was discriminatory and the same was not just and proper on any judicial principle

Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Leave to appeal was refused.

Grievance of civil servants was that after discontinuation of the Secretairat/Personal Allowance, some of the civil servants had been paid the allowance and they were discriminated

Service Tribunal allowed appeals filed by the civil servants and directed the Authorities to grant them the allowance

­Validity

Case had been rightly decided by the Service Tribunal in, the light of S.3 of Secretariat Allowance (Recessions of Orders etc.) Ordinance, 2000, as it was found that the other civil servants had been continuously paid the Secretairat/Personal Allowances up to 1-12-2001 and the allowances already paid to the other civil servants under S. (2) of Secretairat Allowance (Recession of Orders etc.) Ordinance, 2000, were also saved

Service Tribunal had also rightly found that the case of aggrieved civil servants was also covered by S.3 of Secretairat Allowance (Recession of Orders etc.), Ordinance, 2000, and refusal of Competent Authority to grant them allowance was a treatment which was discriminatory and the same was not just and proper on any judicial principle

Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Leave to appeal was refused.

Civil servants whose posts were abolished on account of general retrenchment and were granted leave under R.27 of Revised Leave Rules, 1980, had contended that leave granted to them could be counted towards length of their service for pension

Rule 27 of Revised Leave Rules, 1980 was applicable to those civil servants whose services were terminated/retrenched in consequence of abolition of the post and were allowed concession of encashment of leave at their credit at the time of such termination/retrenchment

Regulation 407 of Civil Service Regulations (C.S.R.) was applicable to those civil servants who were in service and the leave countable as service qualifying for pension referred to the leave granted to such civil servants during the period they had been in service

Revised Leave Rules, 1980 and Civil Service Regulations (C.S.R.) were independent and could not be mixed together

Leave sanctioned under R.27 of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980, was distinguishable from the leave granted to civil servants during the currency of their services

Leave granted during currency of service was countable as service qualifying for pension

Claim of the civil servants, whose posts had been abolished, for counting of the leave granted to them under R.27 of Revised Service Rules, 1980 towards service qualifying for pension being against the rules, was not maintainable.

Offence alleged against the accused wa, of vehicle-snatching which under S.7-B of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was punishable with 7 years' R.I. and fine

Sentence awarded to the accused under 5.392/34, P. P. C. for 10 years was reduced to 7 years' R.I.

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr. P. C. was also extended to the accused.

With the. reinstatement in service a person was entitled to continue previous position held by him prior to happening of a particular event, whereas the term, "re-employment" denoted that a person was employed afresh

Re-instatement was a right of civil servant if so permissible by law, but re-employment was not a right of civil servant and it was the discretion of the employer department to re-employ a civil servant or not

Civil servant who was retired from service on medical grounds could demand under Art.519 of Civil Service Regulations, his re-employment and at the most by taking benefit of that Article, civil servant could ask for the counting of the previous service rendered by him prior to his invalidation on medical ground, but the Civil Service Regulations did not authorise a civil servant to demand continuation of service with all consequential benefits, of fixation of pay, seniority etc. like the benefits permissible at the stage of reinstatement in service

Prayer of civil servant for conversion of fresh appointment into reinstatement on basis of Art. 519, Civil Service Regulations, thus, was misconceived.

Civil servant who was appointed on temporary basis was compulsorily retired from service on account of unauthorised absence from duty after rendering service for more than eleven years

If period of unauthorised absence from duty was deducted, total period of service of civil servant would come to nine years and sixteen days

Regulation, 371-A of Civil Service Regulations, provided that Government servant who had rendered more than five years' continuous temporary service would count said service for purpose of pension or gratuity excluding broken period of temporary service, if any, rendered previously

Civil servant who had rendered service tier more than nine years, could count his said temporary service for purposes of his pension

Civil servant, in circumstances, was entitled to pensionary benefits.

Mere fact that in letter of termination of service issued to civil servant by the department, he was described as a contract employee, could not make him so if otherwise he was not appointed on contract basis

Held whether the civil servant was treated as permanent or temporary employee, he would be entitled to pensionary benefits as admissible under the Regulation

Service Tribunal, in circumstances, ought not have dismissed the appeal of the civil servant on the ground of limitation and should have proceeded to determine the case on merits

Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal before Service Tribunal in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, set aside the order of Service Tribunal and directed the Government to allow pensionary benefits and other benefits admissible to the civil servant in terms of Regulation.

Secretariat Allowance was merged in Revised Pay Scale of civil servants as per Finance Division's Notification dated 15th June, 1994, whereby Government employees were given option either to draw existing pay scales plus Secretariat Allowance or new pay scales plus personal allowance which would, however, cease as soon as their pay was increased by amount equal to or more than their personal allowance

Petitioners could not opt for 20 per cent. Secretariat Allowance after revision of basic pay scales when 35 percent increase was made in the pay of employees

Petitioners after revision of pay scale were not entitled to Secretariat Allowance from Government

Employees of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation were, thus, not entitled to claim Secretariat Allowance after its abolition/amalgamation in revised pay scales.

Payment of Secretariat Allowance was not admissible to all the employees of Federal Government but was payable to only those employees of Federal Government who were serving in the Federal Secretariat, attached departments and offices mentioned in the Office Memorandum

Contention was that all the Federal Government employees serving in BPS 1 to 22 formed one single category and therefore, by allowing allowances only to some of the employees in that category, the Government acted in a discriminatory manner, was repelled

Held, grouping by the Government of its employees serving BPS 1 to 16 into one category, distinct from the category of those serving in BPS 17 to 22 for the purposes of granting greater monetary benefit to the former category, could not be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness or unreasonable classification.

No protection under S. 17, Civil Servants Act, 1973 is available in respect of the allowances paid to a Government servant and their withdrawal by the Government cannot be challenged on any legal plane

Principles.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether such employee was entitled to any pensionary benefits under Regln. 371-A, Civil Service Regulations.

Civil servant while serving as Lecturer in (B-17) on ad hoc basis, qualified Central Superior Sere (C.S.S.) and was-allocated to Income-tax Group

Civil servant who resign from post of Lecturer. and joined new post, requested that two days' break service which had taken place due to change of department be condoned pensionary and other benefits, but his request was rejected by Compel Authority

Civil servant did not fulfil second condition of Civil Service Regulation No. 361-A which was condition precedent for entitlement of pens employment must be substantive and. permanent

Compel exercise of its powers under Civil Service Regulation No. 361-A having not considered it fit to Condone two days' break and count ad hoc service of civil servant towards pensionary benefits, had not violated any conditions in rejecting request of civil servant under Civil Service Regulation No. 361-A.

Service Tribunal dismissing civil servant's appeal on assumption that not only he was temporary employee but office where he was employed was itself a temporary organization

Validity

Leave to appeal was granted to consider civil servant's contention that he having put in more than 10 years' service, even if his termination from service was valid, he was still entitled to pensionary benefits under R. 371-A, Civil Service Regulations

Such contention having raised question of law of public importance required consideration.

Service Tribunal dismissing civil servant's appeal on assumption that not only he was temporary employee but office where he was employed was itself a temporary organisation

Validity

Leave to appeal was granted to consider civil servant's contention that he having put in more than 10 years' service, even if his termination from service was valid, he was still entitled to pensionary benefits under R. 371-A, Civil Service Regulations

Such contention having raised question of law of public importance required consideration.

Civil servant's claim was that his special pay be treated as part of pay for purpose of fixation of his pay from specified date

Petitioner's departmental representation as also his appeal before Service Tribunal remained unsuccessful

Validity

Entitlement

Regulation 486, Civil Service Regulations, requiring special pay of all-types to be included in emoluments

Leave to appeal was granted to consider effect of Regln. 486, Civil Service Regulations and sanction of President in a specified case relating to same subject-matter and application thereof, to petitioner's case.

Mineral Development Directorate originally used to be a department separate from the Directorate of Industries but subsequently, on the dissolution of One-Unit both the Departments were placed under a new Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development

Two separate cadres, however, continued in spite of merger of defunct-Directorates in 1970 but no objection was ever raised by civil servant either at the time of merger or when he was adjusted in the cadre of Mineral Development Wing on 26-6-1985

Civil servant's seniority in that cadre was adjusted m accordance with the Rules which governed that cadre

Civil servant was, thus, estopped by his own conduct from raising any objection against continuance of two cadres after the merger of the Departments concerned i.e. one in which he joined the other wherein he was subsequently adjusted

Competent Authority was, however, directed to issue immediate orders for bringing civil servant back into the fold of his parent cadre where he should be assigned his original seniority among confirmed employees

Civil servant having only temporarily been adjusted in the Mineral Development Wing and having never become a part of that cadre, his name could not be included in the seniority list of that Wing

Service Tribunal while ordering reinstatement of civil servant relied on R. 519 (Chap. XXI), Civil Service Regulations which deals with re-employment of pensioners and their pensionary benefits

Civil servant's case fitted in with the requirements of R. 519, Civil Service Regulations

Civil servant having been declared medically fit by the Medical Board was validly reinstated in service.

Civil servant failed to prove that his services were transferred from Settlement Department to PA.F. and in consequence his previous service in Settlement Department be counted towards his pensionary benefits

Civil Servant's appointment in PAY. was a fresh appointment on terms and conditions specifically set out in his letter of appointment after relaxation of his upper age limit

Civil Servant was not entitled in counting his previous service of Settlement Department with that of PAY. for computing his pensionary benefits.

Service Tribunal while ordering reinstatement of civil servant relied on R. 519 (Chap. XXI), Civil Service Regulations which deals with re-employment of pensioners and their pensionary benefits

Civil servant's case fitted in with the requirements of R. 519, Civil Service Regulations

Civil servant having been declared medically fit by the Medical Board was validly reinstated in service.

Civil servant failed to prove that his services were transferred from Settlement Department to PA.F. and in consequence his previous service in Settlement Department be counted towards his pensionary benefits

Civil Servant's appointment in PA.F. was a fresh appointment on terms and conditions specifically set out in his letter of appointment after relaxation of his upper age limit

Civil servant was not entitled to in counting his previous service of Settlement Department with that of PA.F. for computing his pensionary benefits.

Condonation in length of service was not admissible in case where deficient service would not count for pension even otherwise i.e., claimant was not entitled to get pension

Where claimant was not retired from service in normal circumstances but was retired as a matter of punishment and he had not put in requisite minimum service qualifying for pension, he could not derive benefit of condonation of deficiency in period for becoming eligible to earn pension.

Notifications creating division of pensions new and old pensioners and disparity in the fixation of pensions of servants same grade and category being inconsistent with Injunctions of Islam inasmuch as principles of `Adl' and `Ihsan' were overlooked

Regulation 4, Civil Service. Regulations being discriminatory was ordered to be brought in conformity with Injunctions of Islam.

Officer's claim to pension is regulated by the Rules in force at the time when officer resigns or is discharged from the 'service of Government

New ground or a new avenue can be explored on the basis of some legal principle and not merely on the ground what appears to be just and equitable.

"Competent Authority"-Meaning.

Appellant himself sought premature retirement from his parent department and availed of leave preparatory to retirement and earned pensionary benefits for his services rendered therein

Appellant obtained re-employment with another department after gap of one and a half years

Appellant, held, could not get period between day of his premature retirement from parent department and his re-employment with other department condoned

Appeal of appellant was also barred by time.

Withdrawal of application for-Application of appellant for premature retirement had already been granted by competent Authority and appellant had availed of leave preparatory to retirement for more than half of period of leave

Appellant, held, could not withdraw his application for premature retirement.

Suspension beyond period of three months without its review after every three months not prohibited in case Government servant concerned was accused of criminal liability

Appellant's case was governed not by Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, but by Regulation 194-A of Civil Service Regulations which did not require review of suspension order after every three months

Order of suspension running beyond three months was not suffering from any illegality

Appeal against order was dismissed in circumstances.

Leave to appeal was granted to Federation of Pakistan to examine whether civil servant was at all entitled to benefit of Regn No.418(b) C.S.R. and whether his appeal before the Service Tribunal was not hopelessly time-barred.

Interruption of 67 days in service of appellant occurred due to retrenchment which was treated as extraordinary leave and not counted towards total qualifying service

Plea of appellant that said period of 67 days be treated as deficiency in qualifying service and condoned was repelled

Held, since appellant was not in service for 67 days and was not entitled to any pay, he could not be allowed pension for that period.

Scope.

Provisions of Art. 418 provide for the benefit of counting previous service but. do not ensure entitlement of pensionary benefits from previous employer.

Appeal of Civil servant against refusal of his request for counting his past service towards pension accepted by Service Tribunal

Leave to appeal granted to Government for considering submissions (i) that respondent having tendered unconditional resignation from Department because of his "domestic circumstances" was not entitled to benefit of Art. 418(b) of C.S.R. and his fresh employment in Provincial Department could not be treated as continuation of service of Federal Government; (ii) that respondent was guilty of having played a fraud on the Department under which he was serving by obtaining fresh employment in Provincial Department without applying through his parent Department and (iii) the discretion should not have been exercised by High Court in favour of respondent because of his conduct that appeal of respondent before Service Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred in that

His application was rejected and appeal before Service Tribunal also dismissed on ground that it was not open to petitioner to revoke his own choice which was acted upon by him as well as by Department

Plea raised before Supreme Court that order of retirement was invalid because it was passed in contravention of rule which required Government servant to give three months notice, not entertained because it was not raised before Service Tribunal

Held, having acted upon order of retirement passed at his own request it did not lie in the mouth of petitioner to raise such plea

View taken by Tribunal being unexceptionable, upheld

Leave to appeal refused.

Sanction of compassionate allowance though discretionary with Government, discrimination, held, was to be avoided where cases of different claimants were identical

Where refusal of sanction of compassionate allowance was an get of discrimination as compared to other grantees of such allowance, appeal of dismissed civil servant was partly allowed and Authority was directed by Service Tribunal to reconsider case of appellant for grant of such allowance.

Ordinarily service rendered by employee with Railway and P. I . A.C. would not be service qualifying for pension or retiring benefits, however, such service could be declared by Government to be service qualifying for pension

Total service of employee with Railway and Federal Government alone exceeding twenty-five years would qualify for pension.

"Civil servant"-Person appointed as a trainee with condition for appointment on satisfactory completion of training and allowed fixed pay during training

Not a "civil Servant" but apprentice during training period

Not within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal.

Art. 212-Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4-Leave to appeal granted to examine correctness of rival opinions formed by majority of members of Tribunal and dissenting member.

Pension Rules revised with effect from 1-7-1966 vide Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 18-8-1966 issued with assent of President

No mention in such O.M. that special additional pension admissible under r. 13(a) of Superior Civil Service Rules and C.S.R. 475-A was being done away with

Appellant a retired P.M.As. Officer in receipt of superannuation pension of Rs.7,000 and special additional pension of Rs.700 per annum from 1953

Opting for revised pension rates

Pension less commuted portion revised to Rs.674.52 per month but special additional pension stopped

Appellant agitating against stoppage of special additional pension

Ministry of Finance issuing clarification on 28-11-1967 that rates of ordinary pension in revised pension Table in O.M. dated 18-8-1966 would replace rates of ordinary pension as well as special additional pension and thus special additional pension could not be claimed

Such clarification amounting to substantive modification of O.M dated 18-6-1966 which had force of rules

Subsequent clarification not even sanctified by President, held, could not possibly amend its forerunner of 18-8-1966 having attained-status of rules

Lacuna in O.M. dated 18-8-1966, held, could not be corrected through a belated and retrospective attempt by issuance of O.M. dated 28-11-1969

Appellant, held, entitled to special additional pension also

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4.