Find a Lawyer

Case No. 303/1265 of 1981, decided on 17th May, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4‑-Limitation‑Starts running from date of information of order by competent authority‑Appellant armed with knowledge that his representation stood finally rejected by competent authority-Pouring in further representations, held, would not enlarge limitation period.

‑‑‑‑‑ R. 4.4 (2)‑Average emoluments for purposes of pension‑Pay drawn in foreign service ‑ Cannot be counted towards pay for calculating average emoluments.

Raja Abdul Ghafoor for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑ Ghulam Rasul Mobin has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab through Secretary Labour Department, Government of the Punjab, through Secretary Finance Department, Lahore and Accountant‑General, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 16th May, 1981, be set aside and appellant pension be calculated on the basis of his last pay drawn in the last office.

3. Brief facts of the case that the appellant who was serving with the West Pakistan Industrial Court succeeded in his transfer on deputation with the W. P. A. D. C. The appellant's service were borrowed on the condi tion that W. A. P. D. C. would pay him 20% of his pay in the parent office as special pay with the approval of the Government which was sub sequently accorded. Later on appellant joined W. A. P. D. C. w. e. f 8th December, 1966. The W. P. A. D, C. was dissolved w. e. f. 1st June, 1972, and the appellant's repatriation to the parent department was due on 31st May, 1972 but the appellant proceeded on leave w. e. f. 1st June, 1972 to 31st August, 1972 and was to be repatriated to the parent depart ment after the exiry of leave. In the meantime a successor agency namely Agricultural Supplies Organization was established and on requisition, the services of appellant were placed at the disposal of General Manager, A. S. O. w. e. f. 1st September, 1972, on the same terms and conditions of deputation which the appellant was enjoying under W. P. A. D. C. During his stay in the. P. A. D. S. C. the appellant was promoted as Administrative Officer w. e. f. 5th March, 1975 and thereafter as Assistant Director w. e. f. 11th January, 1976. The appellant stood retired on superannuation basis and L. P. R. was granted to him from 1st June, 1976 to 21st November, 1976. After his retirement the Accountant General Punjab informed the appellant that under W. P. C. S. Pension Rules, 1963, the term pay does not include the pay drawn by a Govern ment servant in foreign service and as such it cannot be counted for calcu lating average emoluments for the purpose of pension. The appellant made a representation to Finance Department through his parent office for calculation of pension on the basis of pay drawn in for sign service but the Finance Department regretted its inability to accept the proposal of the W. P. A. D. C;. and Supplies Corporation. The appellant made representation to the Martial Law Authorities on 4th January, 1978 and the same was forwarded to the Labour Department, Government of the Punjab. However, the appellant received a reply that his request could not be accepted. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the appellant in person as welt a9 learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department. Learned District Attorney has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal as the same was hopelessly time‑barred. We will first of all advert to the objection so raised to find out whether the appeal is within time or not. In this connection we have perused Annexures 'H', J' and 'K' on which reliance has been placed by the learned District Attorney to prove his con tention. Annexure 'H' is a letter from the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court addressed to the appellant. Vide this letter the appellant had been informed that Finance Department Government of the Punjab has adhered to the advice already tendered by it in spite of the fact that Administrative Department strongly recommended his case. In this manner the appellant came to know on 20th June, 1978 that his representation had been rejected. Annexure 'J' is a letter from Government of the Punjab, Finance Depart ment to the appellant in which it has been clearly stated that the decision in his case was taken after due deliberation and it was regretted that the decision earlier taken, could not be changed. This letter is dated 3rd June. 1979. Annexure K' is a letter from the Punjab Administrative Vigilance Commission which also has informed the appellant that as no administrative excess appears to have been committed, the complaint so lodged by the appellant, would not fall within the purview of the said Commission. This letter is dated 26th January, 1980. Annexure 'L' is another letter from S. O. Labour VI which also informed the appellant that his representation was considered again and rejected. This letter is dated 16th May, 1981.

5. The case of the appellant before us is that the time limit would run from Annexure 'L', dated 16th May, 1981 and not from Annexure 'H' which is, dated 20th June, 1978. We are afraid we cannot accept this contention on the ground that no body can be allowed to keep on pouring representations although he is armed with the knowledge that his earlier representation stood finally rejected by the competent authority. If we allow such exercise then the impact of law of limitation would become absolutely ineffective. We, therefore, are of the firm view and considered opinion that the time limit started running against the appellant from 20th June, 1978 or at the best on 3rd June, 1979, when by the later informa tion he was informed that decision in his case was takent after due deliberation but the earlier decision could not be changed. We, therefore, hold that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

6. However, with regard to the merits of the case we are in full accord with the observation of the Finance Department that the term pay' as envisaged in the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1962, does not include the pay drawn by the Government servant in foreign service and that being so, it would not be possible to account pay drawn from foreign employer for calculating average emoluments for the purpose of pension.

7. The result we dismiss the appeal as time‑barred as well as on m1984 P L C (C. S.) 1296

A. E. Appeal 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.