BASHIR AHMAD KHAN Versus TELEPHONES AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.- -The petitioner is an employee of the Telegraph and Telephone Department and has been working herein for nearly 30 years. For an alleged misconduct the Assistant General Manager, Western Telecommunication Region, Quetta, ordered his compulsory retirement from Government service with immediate effect under rule 4 (b) (II) of the Government Servants Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 1973, on 19-1-1983. He filed an appeal against the said order on 13-2-1983 and on the next day i.e. 14-2-1983 he also submitted an application for being allowed to avail leave preparatory to retirement. Shortly thereafter on 11-4-1983, he also submitted an application for pension, which was forwarded to the competent authority.

2. In the meantime, an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was also submitted before a Labour Court but this was dismissed on 30th November, 1983. However, his appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was allowed on 20-9-1984 and the case was remanded for adjudication afresh. Thereafter, the Labour Court by its order dated 23-7-1985 allotted the petitioner's application and ordered his re-instatement in service with back benefits. The respondent challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the petitioner should be deemed to have retired under section 13 (2) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. It also allowed L.P.R. to him in accordance with Para 16 of the Explanatory Instruction for filling up the Leave Account Form.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed a Constitutional Petition before the High Court of Baluchistan at Quetta. The High Court found that not only had the petitioner been allowed L.P.R. as per his request but had been honourably retired, without any stigma. It also observed that the petitioner had already attained 60 years of age. Hence, the relief for re-instatement could not be granted, more so because he had himself applied for L.P.R. Similarly, his request for grant of back benefits could not be granted as he has applied for payment and received the amount of Rs.8,764 as his G.P. Fund. In these circumstances, the~ High Court held that this was not fit case wherein the Constitutional) Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court could be exercised.

4. We heartily agree.

5. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

6. M.I. /B-28/S Petition dismissed.