GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Law, Peshawar vs MUHAMMAD
The Government of N.-W.F.P. filed a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent to count his previous service period from 10-2-1967 to 30-12-1979 for the purpose of calculating gratuity and pensionary benefits. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal correctly applied the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Appeals Nos. 369 to 373 of 1985 regarding the computation of past service for pensionary purposes. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's counsel could not provide any compelling arguments to justify departing from the established legal position or the Tribunal's reliance on the cited precedent. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal, holding that the respondent's previous service period was validly countable for pensionary benefits. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that established precedents regarding the calculation of pensionable service must be consistently applied by Service Tribunals.
- Can previous service rendered by a government employee be counted for the determination of gratuity and pensionary benefits?
- Is a Service Tribunal bound to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court regarding the computation of pensionable service?
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, fmd no force in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.