Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 410 1991 SLD 410 1991 PLC 519
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 2851 of 1988, heard on 16-03-1991.
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J
S.M. Masood for Petitioner. Dr. Shaukat Hussain for
Respondents.

Maj. (Retd.) KHALIQ-UZZAMAN

VS

CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Pension, deduction from---Petitioner a retired Major of Pakistan Army, joined Ghee Corporation as Security Officer---Petitioner continued getting pension as well as salary and initially resisted deduction of pension from his salary but later on agreed that same be deducted from his salary---Grievance of petitioner was that Corporation was also pressing for deduction for payment made during disputed period---Record showing that Service Rules of Ghee Corporation were amended and Corporation started making deductions and petitioner ultimately exercised his option and agreed to the said deduction--­ Amendment in Rules being not retrospective in effect, recovery of pension from salary of petitioner for disputed period was illegal. Khuda Dad Khan v. Military Accountant-General and 2 others1984 P L C (C.S.) 870 ref. Date of hearing: 16th March, 1991. JUDGMENT The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed that the action of the respondent in deducting pension from salary of the petitioner for the period from 28-3-1980 to 28-12-1987 is without lawful authority and jurisdiction. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner, who is a retired Major of Pakistan Army, joined respondent No. 1 on 13-2-1975 as a Security Officer in Fatal Vegetable Ghee Mills Ltd., Islamabad. The petitioner continued getting pension as well as the salary from the respondent till 1987 when he was asked either to retire or allow the deduction of pension from his salary. It seems that the petitioner initially resisted this but subsequently agreed that the pension be deducted from his salary. The grievance now is that the respondents are also pressing for deduction for the payments made during the disputed period. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that there was no mention of deduction of pension in the appointment letter dated 24-2-1975. It is added that the petitioner has met discriminatory treatment as much as other colleagues have been allowed benefit…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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