2016 GBLR 56

QAYYUM SHAH Versus AKESP GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Incharge AKESP

Citation2016 GBLR 56

CourtSupreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan

Judge(s)Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal

DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.--- This petition has been directed against the impugned judgment/order dated 15.05.2013 in Writ Petition No. 117/2011 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, whereby the Writ Petition of the petitioner was dismissed being not maintainable. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with filed this petition for leave to appeal. This court vide order dated 23.09.2015 granted leave to appeal. Consequently, notices were issued to the respondents and the case was finally heard today on 17.08.2016.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as teacher under Aga Khan Education Services, Pakistan on 05.10.1981. He has successfully rendered thirty one (31) years long service in the Aga Khan Education Services, Pakistan. During his service he has availed professional trainings like PTC and CT from recognized educational institutions in order to improve his teaching skills. The respondents terminated the services of the petitioner in line with the Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual vide order No. EOGB/536-38 dated September, 23, 2011. Meanwhile, the AKESP introduced Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme (VERS) on 01.11.2011 to the employees/teachers. Through the said package a handsome financial benefits were announced and extended to all the employees/teachers except to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No. 117/2011 in the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court which upon hearing was dismissed through impugned judgment dated 15.05.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents terminated the considerable period of services i.e. thirty one (31) years of the petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice which is illegal, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice and he was condemned unheard. He adds force to his submission that the respondents/employers were supposed to extend the incentives of Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme (VERS) in favour of the petitioner which was announced only after two (02) months of the termination of the petitioner. He also submits that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court has wrongly dismissed the Writ Petition of the petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 15.05.2013, which is liable to be set aside. He finally prayed that the petitioner may also be given the benefits of the aforementioned Early Retirement Package keeping in view of his long service of thirty one (31) years to meet the ends of justice.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment dated 15.05.2013 in Writ Petition No. 117/2011 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He contends that the petitioner was given his service benefits i.e. Provident Fund, gratuity and other allowances admissible as per policy of the AKESP which he has already accepted and availed as such this petition is hit by Estoppel and not maintainable. He further contends that the petitioner filed Writ Petition during the pendency of Civil Suit in the court of learned Civil Judge Gupis/Yasin while concealing the same. The same Civil Suit was also dismissed. He continued his argument while saying that this petition is hit by the principle of "Master and Servant". He finally contends that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 15.05.2013 which is required to be maintained being well reasoned and well founded.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned judgment dated 15.05.2013 in Writ Petition No. 117/2011 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The perusal of the case file transpires that the petitioner was near to his retirement at the time of his termination on 23.09.2011 i.e. only two months prior to the announcement of the Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme (VERS) dated 01.11.2011. The respondents were supposed to include the petitioner in the aforementioned retirement package instead of terminating his thirty one (31) years lengthy services at par with other employees/teachers of AKESP. The petitioner should have been treated equally among equals. The petitioner was condemned unheard which is, of course, against the principle of natural justice.

6. In view of the above discussions, we convert this petition into an appeal and the same is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 15.05.2013 in Writ Petition No. 117/2011 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court as well as termination letter dated 23.09.2011 issued by the Aga Khan Education Services, Pakistan are set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme (VERS) in favour of the petitioner as given to the other employees/teachers of Aga Khan Education Services, Pakistan.

7. The petition is allowed in above terms.

HBT/93/GB Petition allowed.