Find a Lawyer

(Against the judgment and order, dated 4‑8‑1983 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 158‑R of 1981).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑Civil services‑‑Pension‑‑Appeal of respondent civil servant partially allowed by Tribunal‑‑No question of law of public importance arising in case‑ Leave to appeal refused. ‑‑[Civil service].

Munir A. Shaikh, Dy. A.‑G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M.S. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th June, 1984.

J.‑‑ Leave to appeal is sought under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of Service Tribunal, dated 4‑8‑1983 whereby partly accepting the service appeal for the respondent, a direction was given to his erstwhile employer to finalise his pension claim in accordance with law.

The respondent rendered service under the Ministry of Defence in two distinct periods. From 4‑10‑1951 to 23‑7‑1965 he served Pakistan Ordnance Factory (P.O. F). From 1‑1‑1966 to 10‑6‑1975 he served Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DESTO). The respondent sought the following reliefs from the Tribunal.

(a) The appellant has served for two spells of 5‑10‑1951 to 23‑7‑1965 in the P.O.Fs. and in DESTO from 1‑1‑1966 to 10‑6‑1975. This period of about 24 years has a short break of five months which may be condoned.

(b) The P.O.F's. letter, dated 29‑11‑1976 (enclosed with DESTO letter dated 12‑7‑1981) alleging appellant's removal on immoral grounds be set aside.

(c) The arrears of pension be paid alongwith the current rate of interest. As the services of respondent had been terminated on a month's notice he was found entitled to pensionary benefits for the first period. The Tribunal expressed its inability to bridge the gap in service from 24‑7‑1965 to 30‑12‑1965. It was also held that DESTO had paid all dues legally accruing to respondent. Hence the service appeal was allowed only partially.

It is contended that the claim with regard to pension for service rendered with P.O.F. was not only time‑barred but was also untenable because his was removal on grounds of moral turpitude.

The older terminating his services does not bear out this contention. The Tribunal has also found no merit in it.

We do not find any question of law of public importance arising in this case. Leave to appeal is refused.

S.Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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