DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, KARACHI vs ABDUL
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent for the grant of pensionary benefits. The respondent, formerly an Assistant Accounts Officer with the Auditor-General of Pakistan, was re-employed by the Civil Aviation Authority during his leave preparatory to retirement and served for nearly ten years before finally retiring, receiving only gratuity upon retirement. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to pensionary benefits combining his service periods, and whether his constitutional petition was barred by laches and estoppel. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was justified on equitable grounds in directing the grant of pensionary benefits, especially considering that his prior service tribunal appeal had remained pending before abating under binding precedent, thereby negating the defense of laches. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether an employee re-employed during leave preparatory to retirement is entitled to pensionary benefits for combined periods of service?
- Does the pendency of a matter before a service tribunal that subsequently abates constitute a valid ground to excuse delay and laches in filing a constitutional petition?
- Whether the acceptance of gratuity without demur operates as an estoppel against claiming pensionary benefits upon retirement?
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The respondent was originally an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of Auditor-General of Pakistan who proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement w,e,f, 13-1-1984 for a period of one year. Before the expiry of leave preparatory to retirement, he was re- employed by the Civil Aviation Authority as Deputy Manager (Accounts) in pay group (BPS-17) on 28th of October, 1984. After service of nine years, eight months and twelve days, he finally retired on 15-3-1995 from the post of Cooperative Manager Finance in pay group BPS-18. He was paid gratuity only. Therefore, he filed Constitutional Petition No,D-1469 of 2006 in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi claiming his pensionary benefits for his service of about ten years. The High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15-9-2008, allowed the constitutional petition and directed the petitioners to calculate pensionary benefits of the respondents in accordance with rules as if it was one pension for both the periods of service rendered by him with the Auditor-General of Pakistan as well as Civil Aviation Authority. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the constitutional petition suffered from gross laches as the petitioner came .Forward with a delay of seven years after receiving his gratuity without any demur. The principle of estoppel was also attracted in this case as he had accepted and received retirement benefits without any claim for pension.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the available record. Admittedly, the respondent joined the service of petitioner while he was still in the service of Auditor-General of Pakistan and his leave preparatory to retirement had not yet expired.
In view of the length of his service for about 10 years, the High Court was justified on equitable grounds, to direct the petitioner to grant pensionary benefits to the respondent. Needless to observe that his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal remained pending for a considerable period when the same stood abated in view of A the law laid down by this Court in Mobeen-ul- Islam's case PLD 2006 SC 602. Therefore, the question of laches would not arise in this case in our view, the impugned judgment is just and fair to which no exception can be taken. The other points of law raised by the learned counsel such as application of the Civil Service Regulations to the employees of Civil Aviation Authority are left to be examined in some other appropriate case.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.
Cited by 6 cases
- Mst. Hayat Khatoon vs Province of Sindh and others 2025 SHC LAR 2123
- Mst. Razia Bib vs PTCL and others 2025 SHC KHI 1374, 2025 SHC KHI 1457
- Mst. RAZIA BIBI Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED 2025 PLC(CS) 1204
- Mohammed Adnan vs PTCL and others 2025 SHC 432
- Abdul Tauheed Khan vs The Federation of Pakistan & another 2018 SHC 925
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ZAFAR SAHI vs MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Defence, Rawalpindi and 5 others 2015 PLC (C.S.) 25