| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 283 1999 SLD 283 1999 SCMR 255 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1296 of 1998, decision dated: 12-11-1998. (On appeal from the judgment of Sindh Service Tribunal, dated 15-12-1997 passed in Appeal No. 119 of 1997)
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, JJ
Appellant in person. Muneeb Ahmed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1296 of 1998, decision dated: 12-11-1998. (On appeal from the judgment of Sindh Service Tribunal, dated 15-12-1997 passed in Appeal No. 119 of 1997)
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, JJ
Appellant in person. Muneeb Ahmed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh for
Respondents
MUAHAMMAD AHMED
VS
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1,973)--Art.212(3) --- Termination of service --- No reason for termination of service were disclosed in the letter of termination --- Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider as to whether civil servant, an employee of Sindh Government continued to remain a temporary employee despite being confirmed in his appointment and serving the department for nearly 25 years and whether such appointment despite being described as 'on contract basis' against lump sum remuneration, could be terminated without show-cause notice and without assigning any reason. (b) Civil Services Regulations--- ---- Regin.371-A --- Pensionary benefits --- Entitlement --- When services of employee were terminated, he had attained the age of superannuation and was to retire on that day --- Termination letter issued to employee disclosed no reasons for termination of service --- Appointment letter issued to civil servant did not show that he was appointed on contract --- Record proved that civil servant was a regular employee of the Government --- Mere fact that in letter of termination of service issued to civil servant by the department, he was described as a 'contract employee', could not make him so if otherwise he was not appointed on contract basis --- Held whether the civil servant was treated as permanent or temporary employee, he would be entitled to pensionary benefits as admissible under the Regulation --- Service Tribunal, in circumstances, ought not have dismissed the appeal of the civil servant on the ground of limitation and should have proceeded to determine the case on merits --- Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal before Service Tribunal in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, set aside the order of Service Tribunal and directed the Government to allow pensionary benefits and other benefits admissible to the civil servant in terms of Regulation. The termination letter issued to civil servant disclosed no reason for termination of the service. Contention of the department was that the reason for terminating the service was, that he had reached the age of superannuation. Civil servant also did not dispute…
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