Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 237 of 1982, decided on 29th October, 1985.

(On appeal from judgment, dated 3‑8‑1982 of Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad in Appeal No. 30(P) of 1981).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Malaria Eradication Board (Repeal) Act (LXIV of 1975), S.2(2)‑‑Malaria Eradication Board Ordinance (XVIII of 1961)‑‑Malaria Eradication Board agreeing through a resolution to pay to its employee one month's pay as gratuity for each completed year of service in Malaria Eradication Programme‑‑On repeal of Malaria Eradication Board Ordinance 1961, liability created against Board became liability of Federal Government‑‑Federal Government, held, could not disown such liability‑ Order of Federal Service Tribunal allowing gratuity to respondent at cost of Federal Government. after repeal of Ordinance, maintained.

Munir A. Sheikh, Deputy Attorney‑General with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Respondent No. 1 in person.

Respondent No. 2: Ex parte.

Date of hearing: 29th October, 1935.

The respondent No. 1 joined service under the Provincial Malaria Eradication Board constituted under the Malaria Eradication Board Ordinance (No. XVIII of 1961), 1961, as an Administrative‑cum‑Supply Officer on 19‑‑8‑1983. The respondent was still in the service of the Board when the Malaria Eradication Board (Repeal) Act, 1975, was promulgated and came into force on 29‑7‑1975. This repealed the Malaria Eradication Board Ordinance, 1961. By virtue of clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Repealing Act the services of all the officers and other employees of the Board were transferred to the Federal Government from the date of its promulgation i.e. 29‑7‑1975. The respondent thus became a Federal Government employee on 29‑7‑1975 and his services automatically, by operation of law, came to be governed under the new law called the Malaria Eradication Board (Repeal) Act, 1975, from 29‑7‑1975. On the coming into force of the new law the respondent's post was re-designated and he became Assistant Director Malaria Control from 29‑7‑1975.

Thereafter, the respondent applied for permission to join the D.D.T. Factory, Nowshera. The request was granted and he was allowed by the Government to join the service with D.D.T. Factory, Nowshera, with the right of reversion for a period of one year with effect from 22‑10‑1977.

On the completion of the said period of one year, the respondent did not rejoin the Federal Government and instead applied for further extension. The request was refused and he was advised to report back for duty by the 15th December, 1978. The respondent was also informed that in case of failure to join service by the said date, he would be deemed to have severed all his connections with the Directorate of Malaria Control as well as the Health Ministry. In spite of this advice and direction the respondent did not join service with the appellant Government. His services, thus, came to an end on the expiry of one year i.e. on 21‑10‑1978 as he had been allowed to join D.D.T. Factory, Nowshera from 22‑10‑1977. His services were considered and treated as 'deemed to have been terminated'.

On 19‑11‑1979, the respondent without calling in question his termination order, submitted his pension papers. His prayer for grant of pension/ gratuity was rejected by the Government. After having failed in his representation also, the respondent approached the Federal Service Tribunal and filed an appeal here on 20‑1‑1981 claiming pension /gratuity etc. This appeal (No. 30(P) of 1981) was partly accepted by the Federal Service Tribunal vide its order, dated 3‑8‑1982 and it was directed that the respondent (appellant before the Tribunal) be paid the amount of gratuity for the period of service rendered by him under the Board according to the then prevailing Rules of the Board.

This appeal, with leave of this Court, is directed against the above order of the learned Service Tribunal.

We have heard Mr. Munir A. Sheikh, learned Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the appellants.

It is common ground that the outcome of this appeal rests on the true construction of the provisions of the saving clause contained in the Malaria Eradication Board (Repeal) Act, 1975. The provisions of section 2(2)(b) are relevant which read:‑

The Malaria Eradication Board Ordinance, 1961 (XVIII of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, is hereby repealed.

(2) Upon the repeal of the Ordinance,‑

(a) ...............................................................

(b) all rights, properties, assets, debts, liabilities and obligations of the Board shall be the rights, properties, assets‑, debts, liabilities and obligations of the Federal Government;

(c) ...............................................................

(d) ...............................................................

Our attention has been drawn to a Resolution in the Twelfth meeting of the Central Malaria Eradication Board held at Islamabad on the 3rd July, 1972 on the subject:‑

"fringe benefits for the Central Malaria Eradication Board employees".

This resolution is in the following terms:‑

"The Board agreed (i) to pay one month's pay as gratuity for each completed year of service in Malaria Eradication Programme, and (ii) medical facilities as provided to temporary‑ Government servants. The Chairman also directed that their other, genuine demands should be placed in the next Central Malaria Eradication Board Meeting."

It is not denied that the gratuity allowed to the respondent has been allowed strictly in terms of the above resolution. The question now only is whether this resolution could have been availed of by the respondent after the repeal of the Malaria radication Board Ordinance, 1961

In our opinion, he was entitled to avail of the said resolution and could claim the benefits conferred to the employees of the Malaria Eradication Board under it. According to the said resolution certain liabilities had been created against the Board which it was obliged to honour and fulfil. Since the liabilities and obligations of the Board had become the liabilities and obligations of the Federal Government under sub clause (b) of clause (2) of section 2 of the Repeal Act, 1975, the Federal Government could not disown them. The Service Tribunal therefore, was justified in allowing gratuity to the respondent.

The result is that there is no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. 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.