MUHAMMAD HASEEB versus GENERAL MANAGER, PRODUCTION WEAPONS POF, WAH CANTT.
Section 5 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Restoration of mandatory retirement in service under the jurisdiction of Section 4 Service Tribunal, Government servant in front of the service tribunal ordered his compulsory retirement and requested reinstatement on the job. , A government employee temporarily submitted a request. Seeking orders from the Government Residential Quarter Service Tribunal to prevent authorities from dismissing him, the Service Tribunal dismissed important appeals by directing government employees to allow them pension benefits, that was, on behalf of employees. Instead of deciding to appeal, the service tribunal dealt with it. On the basis that their complaint was simply that they were not being paid pension benefits, no argument was made by the two parties on the merits, therefore, the service tribunal was responsible for that. They should restrict themselves to either. To the extent that the application was dismissed and submitted at the same time, I should have decided on the eligibility rights of a litigant who served 17 years and has been with the service tribunal for more than 6 years. Were awaiting the outcome of the appeal and they were seeking interim injunction against the personnel. The exclusion of a government resident quarterly, except for a person requesting rehabilitation, should not be limited to the payment of pension benefits alone, which is otherwise his right to do so under the rules. There was no need to pass an order or the request was the same prayer if a public servant was only interested in fitting a pensioner, then he would go to the department at an early stage.
