Syed ABDUS SALAM KAZMI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, WASA, MULTAN and another

' Briefly the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that petitioner had been serving in respondent WASA department and retired from service as Head Draftsman on 14-10-1996 on attaining the age of superannuation vide order dated 10-6-1996. During his stay in service, some tenders were called by the respondent department for Sharifpura Disposal Work, Multan. According to the petitioner, after opening of the tenders these were entered by him in the relevant register and after preparation of comparative statement he forwarded the results to the concerned Executive Engineer. At some later point of time the estimated cost of the project was enhanced.

Regarding which on a move by one MPA, inquiry committee was constituted comprising of four members. In the said inquiry the petitioner was absolved from the charges and recommendations to this effect were forwarded to Secretary H&PP on 12-9-1992. In the meanwhile, however, the petitioner retired from service and his case for gratuity and pension, etc. Was duly approved and he kept on receiving the pension till 15-10-1996, when it was stopped by the respondent illegally.

Afterwards, a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner on the basis of earlier inquiry in which the petitioner had been exonerated. Now the petitioner impugns the stoppage of his pensionary benefits on the basis of said inquiry.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pension was legally sanctioned in favour of The petitioner under the relevant Pension Rules; that any inquiry under the Pension Rules could be conducted only before the sanction of the pension and not afterwards that petitioner was no more in Government service, therefore, no inquiry under Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules could be conducted against him, and that pension is right of the petitioner and cannot be withheld arbitrarily. In this behalf learned counsel has placed reliance on PLD 1973 SC 514 and contends that pensionary benefits of the petitioner have been stopped after five years of his retirement, which action of the respondents is illegal and without any lawful authority.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-department opposes the petition by contending that inquiry was conducted against the petitioner wherein he himself participated and was found guilty, therefore, his pension was stopped to recover the loss. It is further contended that before stoppage of pension, formal notice under section 108 of Pension Rules was also issued.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Admittedly the petitioner had been serving in the respondents- department; an inquiry was initiated during his service wherein he was absolved; then he was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and pension was sanctioned in his favour which he had been getting until stopped vide impugned letter. This Court in "1995 PLC (C.S.) 817" held as under:-- "R. 108---Pension and gratuity---Withholding of---Inquiry pending against civil servant---Law required that the pension and other service benefits should be released to the retiring Government Servant and if any inquiry was pending against him same should be finalized within one year from the date of his retirement."

' In "1983 PLC (C.S.) 832", it has been held that:-- "Pension---Cannot be withheld one year after retirement---Enquiry pending on date of retirement abates on completion of one year."

' The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in "PLD 1973 Supreme Court 514" held as under:- "Pension---No longer a bounty but a right---Cannot be reduced arbitrarily---Pension, however, not given as a matter of course and can be reduced if service not thoroughly satisfactory---Such power, however, exercisable only before pension actually sanctioned."

6. Admittedly in the instant case, inquiry was not concluded during petitioner's stay in service, who retired on superannuation and pensionary benefits were sanctioned, but after five years of his retirement through impugned letter pension has been stopped, which is against the spirit of law.

7. Similarly, inquiry could not continue against the petitioner after his retirement as after his retirement notification he was no more a Government employee. In this behalf learned counsel has rightly referred to a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab, Service, General Administration, Information Department No.S.O.(S). 12-12/82 dated 17th of September, 1982, wherein it was notified as under:-- "After their retirement they are no longer Civil Servants, the disciplinary proceedings against them stand abated.

' Attention should be given to disciplinary proceedings against civil servants reaching the age of superannuation, particularly to the cases of those who are to retire within one year."

' This fact has further been approved by Service Tribunal Punjab in "1994 PLC (C.S.) 454", wherein it was held as under:-- "Person would remain a civil servant only so long as he was in service of Provincial Government and he would cease to be a civil servant on his retirement, removal and dismissal, etc. From service."

' The learned counsel for the respondent department has tried to argue that notice was duly issued to the petitioner before stoppage of his pension, but this notice too was issued after four years of petitioner's retirement which is against the spirit of law.

8. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 26- 4-2001 being illegal is set aside and respondents department is directed to release the pension of the petitioner forthwith from the date it was actually stopped. #EndJudgment