MUHAMMAD ASGHAR RANA vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and subsequent Intra-Court Appeal concerning pensionary benefits. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a retired employee could claim unpaid increments after an inordinate delay of more than nine years from the date of retirement. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's gross negligence and delayed approach after more than nine years disentitled him to any equitable relief, upholding the High Court's view that the law favours the diligent and not the negligent. The key principle laid down is that unexplained, prolonged delay and laches in claiming service and pensionary benefits disentitle a party from invoking equitable constitutional jurisdiction.
- Does an inordinate delay of nine years in claiming pensionary benefits disentitle a retired employee to equitable relief?
- Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing a writ petition filed after prolonged negligence?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- For the reasons stated in this application, C.M.A. No,1613/L of 2003 is allowed and C.P.L.A. No,795/L of 2001 dismissed for non-prosecution on 2-6-2003 is restored to its original number.
2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has no objection to the hearing of the main petition today.
3. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court was dismissed which dismissal was maintained in the Intra-Court Appeal essentially on the ground that the petitioner having retired in the year 1991 had woken up to question some part of his pensionary benefits after more than nine long years. The Honourable High Court was of the view that such a negligence on the part of the petitioner disentitled him to any relief in equity. The claim of the petitioner was that he was entitled to some increments which had not been allowed to him. The said increments had never been claimed by the petitioner while he was in service nor was the same claimed at the time of his retirement when his pension was fixed and neither did the petitioner feel aggrieved of the same for more than nine years. Needless to add that the law favours the diligent and not the negligent.
4. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in Civil Appeals Nos.1298 of 1995, 3, 4 and 206 of 1998 which is however, distinguishable on facts.
5. In this view of the matter, no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment of the Honourable High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Saif-Ur-Rehman vs Secretary and another 2023 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 5
- F.G. SIR SYED COLLEGE RAWALPINDI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF. DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others 2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 131
- Ashraf Ali Shah vs Government of Pakistan through Chairman, Federal 2022 PLJ Tr. C (Services) 119