
2017 PLC (CS) 40
Terms and conditions for allotment of government accommodation, government quarters. Petitioners had been termed as licensees and have never been accepted as tenants, and the Provincial Government and its officials were the rightful custodians of government quarters. Licensees had no fright whatsoever regarding allotment of any government quarter, except the use of same till the same was in other possession, in the light of allotment order. Petitioner had not shown that allotments of quarters to other person was illegal. Only embargo on authorities were to make all allotments strictly in accordance with law.
2017 YLR 576 LHC
S. 42 & 54 Suit for declaration and injunction…. Condemned unheard—withholding of pensionary benefits.. Plaintiff retired from service on attaining age of 60 years but his pensionary benefits were withheld on the ground of audit objections after 6-7 years of his retirement. Plaintiff assailed letter issued by authorities withholding his pensionary benefits on the plea of his condemning unheard—Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed in his favour but Lower Appellate Court reversed findings and dismissed the suit—Validity—pensionary benefits of plaintiff were his vested right and authorities had no right to recover any amount outstanding against retired employee from his pension without issuing him show cause notice and giving him an opportunity to defend himself—Nothing was on record to show that any notice was sent to plaintiff—pension of petitioner could not be stopped or withheld on any ground—Recovery of disputed amount was effected from plaintiff, which order was successfully challenged by him before competent departmental authority/ Commissioner—Order of Commissioner attained finality and authorities were not empowered under law to review, recall or upset the order which had already attained finality, that too after 6-7 years of retirement of plaintiff—High Court set aside findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court as the same were not sustainable in the eye of law, resultantly judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was restored—Revision was allowed in circumstances.
2016 PLC (CS) 472 LHC
pension , sanction of—Scope and procedure—pension was not a bounty or an ex-gratia payment but a right acquired in consideration of past services—pension of a retired government employee had to be sanctioned one month in advance of the due date of his retirement and final payment order must be issued not more than a fortnight in advance thereof—pension was a vested right and a legitimate expectation of a retiring civil servant—Such being a right could not be arbitrarily abridged or reduced except in accordance with law
2015 SCMR 1472 SC (c)
pension, right to ….. pension was part of a retirement benefit and was not a bounty or an ex-gratia payment but a right acquired in consideration of his past service which was a vested right with legitimate expectation. Right to pension was conferred by law which could not be arbitrarily abridged ore reduced except in accordance with law.
2015 PLC (CS) 1417 SC
pension , right to—Scope—pension was part of a civil servant’s retirement benefit and was not a bounty or an ex-gratia payment but a right acquired in consideration of his past service which was a vested right with legitimate expectation—right to pension was conferred by law which could not be arbitrarily abridged or reduced except in accordance with law. 2014 SCMR 1336 SC S. 19—pension , right of—Nature—Acquired and vested right —pension formed a part of a civil servant’s retirement benefits—pension was not a bounty or an ex-gratia payment but a right acquired in consideration of past services—pension was a vested right and a legitimate expectation of a retiring civil servant—right to pension was conferred by law and could not be arbitrarily abridged or reduced except in accordance with law. 2013 PLC (CS) 465 rent of accommodation, Plaintiffs were ex-employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) who after retirement were using accommodation of the company. Grievance of Plaintiffs was that they were entitled to pension but PTCL had withheld it in lien of recovery of rent regarding accomodations being used by them. Plaintiffs who retired in normal course continued to retain flats occupied by them after lapse of six months period, then they had to pay either rent as penal rate of 11.25% of pension or ‘standard rent’, whichever was higher. PTCL was unable to state whether ‘standard rent’ had at all been notified by it, as relevant for plaintiffs. Pay and pension were two separate and distinct concepts and were separately set out in definition of emoluments (Regln 17.01(b) of PTCL Service Rules, 1996. Nothing existed in Regln 17 of PTCL Serrvice Rules, 1996, as would permit PTCL to adjust penal rent due from any of relevant Plaintiff pensions payable to such plaintiffs. If at all PTCL wished to recover such amount, it could seek its remedy elsewhere. Plaintiffs were entitled, unless anything to the contrary was shown, to the payment of pension. Plaintiff’s must, to a greater or lesser degree (depending on specific circumstance of each) be suffering on account of non payment of pension. Such injury and suffering must be regarded as materially affecting their lives. All ingredients for interim relief in place in favor of Plaintiffs therefore High Court directed PTCL to pay in full all arrears of pension to plaintiffs, that had accumulated on account of its putative adjustment by way of rent or otherwise. Application was allowed in circumstances. 2013 PLC 345 Peshawar High Court Ss. 46 & 50(3)—Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(b)(i)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—Option for Voluntary Separation Scheme—Withholding of payment of commutation and monthly allowance— Grievance petition— Jurisdiction of Labour Court—Scope-Employer company launched a Voluntary Separation Scheme, and employees who availed that option/offer, were paid some amount on. account of severance pay etc., but the payment of commutation and monthly allowance were withheld by the employer company—Grievance petition filed by the employees was accepted by the Labour Court which was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal—Counsel for the employer raised objection’ that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition as the employees were not workmen and the employer company was not Commercial Establishment—Employer company, had come within the definition of industry as well as Commercial Establishrnent as per definition under S.2(b)(i) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as it had hired the services of their employees to do skilled, unskilled, manual as well as clerical work—Since in the present case, the employees had been deprived of the emoluments and pension s etc., they had right ly knocked the doors of Labour Court being workmen—Grievance petitions involved both factual and legal controversies, Labour Court, after conducting proper trial and giving full opportunities to both the parties to produce pro and contra evidence, decided the matter on its own merits both on facts and law—Employees had suffered a lot, both financially and physically, for the acts of the others—Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, in circumstance, had right ly exercised the authority vested in them by legal provisions of law—Constitutional petition was dismissed. 2012 PLC(CS) 209 Federal Service Tribunal S. 19— Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), Ss.3 & 10—Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4—Withholding pensionary benefits—Appellant retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years, but his pension ary benefits were withheld by impugned order on ground that a criminal case was pending adjudication against the appellant-Validity-pension ary benefits of the appellant were his vested right and authorities had no right to recover any amount outstanding against a retired employee from his pension without issuing him a show-cause notice and giving him an opportunity to defend himself—Nothing was on record to show that any notice was sent to the appellant—pension of appellant could not be stopped—Impugned order whereby pensionary benefits of the appellant were withheld, was . set aside, with direction to the authorities to pay the pension to the appellant within a period of one month. 2011 PLC (CS) 623 whether there was no statutory right in favor of employees to continue in service despite retrenchment, which aspect was not adverted to by High Court. 2005 SCMR 292 Right of pension depends upon statutory provisions regulating it, therefore existence of such right or otherwise is determined primarily from the terms of the statute under which the right or privilege is granted. In general sense, the term ‘pension’ denotes to a grant after release from services. Pension is designated to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants and to presupposes the continued life after retirement. PLD 1973 SC 514 Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963, r 1.8… Government servant… pension…. No longer a bounty but a right… cannot be reduced arbitrarily. Pension, however not given as a matter of right of course and can be reduced if service not thoroughly satisfactory. Such power however exercisable only before pension actually sanctioned. |