| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 397 2022 SLD 397 2022 PLC 197 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 163 of 2016, decision dated: 7th November, 2019. Dates of hearing: 7th and 8-10-2019.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE, ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Javed Asghar Awan for Appellants. Aga Zafar Ahmed and Hummul S. Zubedi for
Respondent.
High Court Appeal No. 163 of 2016, decision dated: 7th November, 2019. Dates of hearing: 7th and 8-10-2019.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE, ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Javed Asghar Awan for Appellants. Aga Zafar Ahmed and Hummul S. Zubedi for
Respondent.
NATIONAL REFINERY LIMITED AND ANOTHER
VS
SYED NIAZ AHMED
Law: Civil Servants Act, 1973
Section: 22
(a) Civil service--- ----Pensionary benefits, calculation of---Scopes impugned passed by Single Judge of High Court passed in a suit whereby pension claim of respondent was decreed---Contention of appellants was that the service of respondent with the parent employer was not pensionable and hence the transfer of respondent with the appellants was in fact a date of fresh appointment to calculate his pensionary benefits---Validity---Record disclosed that an application of the respondent was forwarded by parent employer of respondent to the appellants and the respondent was issued a letter whereby his services were confirmed---Several facilities were ensured to respondent at the time of his transfer---Pension relating to past service was declined only on account of a decision taken in the meeting of Board of Directors of Petroleum Refining and Petrochemical Corporation (PERAC) and it was at a belated stage that the Board had realized and decided not to make any payment on that account---Decisions taken after the transfer of the respondent could not have retrospective effect---Terms of the service were ensured at the time of respondent’s transfer, which could not be lifted unilaterally depriving an employee of his post-retirement benefits or any of the terms of transfer to which he was entitled at the time when he was transferred---No interference in the impugned was required, as such, the appeal was dismissed. (b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- ----S.22---Right of appeal or representation---Limitation---Scopes impugned passed by Single Judge of High Court passed in a suit whereby pension claim of respondent was decreed---Contention of appellants was that the departmental representation itself was barred by time hence the appeal before Service Tribunal ought to have been dismissed on that count---Validity---In terms of S.4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, party aggrieved of a final order of departmental authority could prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal within 30 days of the communication of such order---Appeal of respondent to the Service Tribunal was within time---Said appeal was abated on announcement of the of Supreme Court in Muhammad…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492