CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER vs Syed MUHAMMAD AHSAN and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of a respondent who was discharged from service by the Cantonment Executive Officer. The respondent, initially appointed as a temporary sanitary worker, was subsequently regularized against a permanent post of peon. Despite serving for fifteen years, the petitioner discharged the respondent, erroneously characterizing him as a temporary, unconfirmed employee. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner could summarily discharge the respondent without following due process, given the respondent's confirmed status. The Supreme Court held that the discharge order contradicted the documentary evidence confirming the respondent's permanent status. Consequently, the Court determined that the respondent was a permanent employee entitled to retirement benefits upon reaching the age of superannuation, rather than being subject to discharge. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that an employer cannot arbitrarily deny the status of a permanent employee when official records explicitly establish such confirmation, and dismissed the petition for lack of substance.
- Can an employer summarily discharge an employee who has been regularized against a permanent post?
- Does an office order confirming an employee's permanent status supersede a subsequent discharge order labeling the employee as temporary?
- Is an employee who has been regularized against a sanctioned post entitled to retirement benefits upon reaching the age of superannuation?
ORDER
' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 20-6-2006 in Appeal No,813(K) of 1999.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Sanitary worker in B-1 on 27-10- 1986. His appointment was temporary but he was regularized against the post of peon vide order, dated 27-10-1986 passed by Cantonment Executive Officer, Drigh Road, Karachi. The respondent after having put in about 15 years of service was discharged on 30-11-1998. In the office order discharging the respondent. The Cantonment Executive Officer had mentioned him as a temporary servant and not confirmed. This office order was absolutely in blatant contradiction of the office order, dated 27-10-1986, a copy of which is appearing at page 28 of the paper book, a perusal whereof unambiguously confirms that respondent was permanently adjusted against a sanctioned post of peon. This being the factual position respondent could not have been discharged from service without following the procedure.
3. It has been stated that the respondent has attained the age of 60 years and was liable to retire but as he was not a permanent employee, therefore, he was discharged. This contention is contrary to the facts on record. At the time when the respondent had attained the age of superannuation he was confirmed and permanent employee of the petitioner and ought to have been retired providing him the pensionary/ retirement benefits for 15 years service rendered by him as was done by the petitioner in the case of Muhammad Shafi, Chowkidar who was also absolved on permanent basis vide office order, dated 27-10-1986.
4. It may also be mentioned that in spite of service of notice none appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Service Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal had no option but to proceed ex parte.
5. For the foregoing facts, reasons and discussion this petition is found to be without any substance and is dismissed. Leave refused.