Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 113‑R of 1982, decided on 9th October, 1982.

(Against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12‑4‑1980, passed to Appeal No. 60 (R)/1978).

‑‑ Art. 212 (3) read with Civil Service Regulations, 1939, r. 7 (5) and Fundamental Rules, rr. 9 (21) & 9 (25)‑Pension‑Calculation of‑ Word "emoluments" in r. 7 (5) of C. S. R., 1939‑Definition‑Special pay not attached to post held by civil servant at time of superannuating and deputation pay‑Cannot be added to salary of such civil servant for purpose of computing his pension‑Order of Service Tribunal dismissing appeal of petitioner on such ground‑Held: unexception able‑Leave to appeal refused.

M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S. Shahudul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 9th October, 1982.

The petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12‑4‑1980, whereby his appeal regarding pension was dismissed.

2. The facts leading to the present case are, briefly, that the petitioner joined Service in Government of India in 1939. On the Partition of the Sub‑Continent in 1.947 he opted to serve in Pakistan and held various, posts since then. On 16‑5‑1973, was appointed as Second Secretary in the Central Board of Revenue in Grade 18 where he was drawing the maximum pay of this said scale i.e. Rs. 1,750 plus Rs. 100 as Special Pay Later on, on 23‑3‑1.974, his services were placed at the disposal of the, Ministry of Production for appointment. as Deputy Secretary in the Board of Industrial Management. A notification in this regard was issued by the Government on 3‑4‑1974. Terms and condition of his service for this post were, however, not specified. Having reached the age of superannuation he was retired on 3‑12‑1974 and he relinquished charge on 17‑12‑1974. It is thereafter, on 26‑8‑1975 that his terms and conditions were specified and he was given the maximum pay of Rs. 1,800. But on representation it was increased to Rs.2,190 by the Government, break‑up of which was as follows

1. Pay Rs. 1,750

2. Special Pay Rs. 100

3. Deputation Pay Rs. 340

Total Rs. 2,190

The petitioner expected to be paid pension on this pay but the Accountant General's Office counted his emoluments for the purpose of his pension as Rs. 1,750 only. The petitioner made a representation against it to the relevant authority but received no reply whereupon he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, on 19‑8‑1978, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that emoluments for the purpose of pension should include the amount of special pay as well as the deputation pay. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, adverted our attention to para. 7 (5) of the Civil Service Regulations, 1939 (relating to Pension), wherein the word emoluments' have been defined as follows :‑

(a) Pay as defined in F. R. 9 (21) (a) (i).

(b) Special pay granted in terms of F. R. 9 (25) ;

(c) Technical Pay ;

(d) Personal Pay ; and

(e) Any other emoluments which may specifically be declared as emoluments reckoning for pension.

He pointed out that although the special pay' is added to the salary for the purpose of computing pension of a Government Servant but not the deputa tion pay as the same has not been specifically declared as amount reckoning for pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he should at least be given the benefit of Rs. 100 (special pay). To this the learned counsel for the respondent answered that special pay was not admissible to hire against the post held by the petitioner with the Board of Industrial Managements. He stated that no doubt that although Rs. 100 as special pay were given to him yet it was subsequently found to be contrary to rules. However, since the department did not wish to want him to refund the money it increased the amount of special pay and termed the whole of the extra amount (Rs. 440) as deputation pay. This is borne out by letter No. Per sOnnol‑20 (Oi7q, dated 18‑6‑1978 issued by the Ministry of Production, Islamabad.

In view of the above discussion we feel that the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is unexceptionable and does not call for interference. The petition is consequently dismissed.

Petition dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.