PROVINCE OF SINDH Versus Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J. ‑‑‑Province of Sindh, the petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 25‑4‑2001 of learned Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi delivered in Service Appeal No.387 of 2000, whereby said appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed.

2. The respondent was appointed as A.S.‑I. on regular basis on 1‑11‑1959. His date of birth is 1‑3‑1941 and it is reflected in service book. On the basis of said date, the date of superannuation was 28‑2‑2001. Inadvertently, his date of birth in police record was shown as 1‑3‑1939. He was retired from service on 28‑2‑1999. After following usual procedure, he filed departmental appeal challenging Notification dated 20‑2‑1998 and also claimed consequential benefits of promotions, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.10‑2000. Thereafter, he filed appeal before Tribunal, which was allowed with the following observations:‑‑

"The Assistant Advocate‑General while admitting the fact that the appellant was wrongly retired, claimed that it was due to bona fide mistake and not due to any mala fide intention and, therefore, conceded that based on this fact the Tribunal may pass suitable order f in the light of prayers of the appellant. "

3. The respondent was granted reliefs in terms of judgment dated 25‑4‑2001 of learned Service Tribunal.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was not entitled to any relief after his retirement from Government service. It is also urged that Tribunal seriously erred by allowing appeal of the respondent without appreciating law and principles governing the terms and conditions of a civil servant. Learned counsel also argued that the dues of a civil servant after his retirement could nor he settled by learned Tribunal.

5. Learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to issue revised notification retiring the respondent w.e.f. 28‑2‑2001 on the basis of his correct date of birth. The petitioner was also directed that the respondent's pay and pension were to be fixed on the basis of revised date of retirement and all consequential benefits arising therefrom till date of his retirement, were to be paid in full. It was also ordered that the department may place the case of the respondent before Departmental Promotion Committee and, if he was otherwise eligible and there was a vacancy existing at the time of his antedated retirement, a pro forma promotion could be allowed to him to enable him to draw revised benefits including pay and pension.

6. We have noticed that the respondent was deprived of his legal dues/benefits due to mistake committed by the department and now the department cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own unjustified act of omission and commission. The order of the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted.

7. Inconsequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.

S. A. K./P‑51/S ??????????

Petition dismissed.