GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Law, Peshawar vs MUHAMMAD
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of N.-W.F.P. against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had directed that the respondent's previous service period from 10-2-1967 to 30-12-1979 be counted for the purpose of calculating his gratuity and pensionary benefits. The Service Tribunal had based its decision on a prior judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal's decision to count the respondent's previous service for pensionary purposes was legally sustainable. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was unable to provide any compelling arguments to justify a departure from the established legal position or the precedent relied upon by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the previous service period was correctly counted for pensionary benefits. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that established precedents regarding the computation of service for pensionary benefits must be followed.
- Can previous service be counted for the purpose of determining gratuity and pensionary benefits?
- Does a Service Tribunal's reliance on a Supreme Court precedent justify the counting of previous service for pensionary benefits?
ORDER
1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Law Department, has filed above petition seeking leave to appeal against the Order of N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 27-5-1992 whereby the learned. Tribunal accepted the appeal of the respondent and allowed his previous service for the period from 10-2-1967 to 30-12-1979 to be counted for determining his gratuity and pensionary benefits. In allowing the appeal of the respondent the learned Service Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in Appeals Nos. 369 to 373 of 1985 decided on 22-12- 1990. The learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., appearing for the petitioner is unable to advance any argument to persuade us to take a different view in the present case. We, accordingly, find no force in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.