ABDUL HAMEED KHAN vs MAQBOOL AHMED KHAKWANI and 2 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal regarding the termination of his employment following the conclusion of a project and his claim for pensionary benefits. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to pension and gratuity despite having rendered slightly less than the qualifying ten years of service, and whether the Service Tribunal could condone the deficiency. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave should be granted to consider the petitioner's entitlement to pension and whether the deficiency of six months in qualifying service stood condoned under government instructions. The key principle laid down is that while service tribunals are confined to adjudicating departmental orders under the relevant statute, questions regarding the interpretation of government instructions on condoning service gaps for pensionary benefits warrant further examination by the apex court.
- Whether an employee whose services are terminated upon the completion of a project is entitled to pensionary benefits despite falling short of the ten-year qualifying service?
- Can the Service Tribunal exercise the power of the competent authority to condone gaps in service for the grant of pension?
- Whether government instructions regarding the condonation of a deficiency in qualifying service were correctly interpreted by the Service Tribunal?
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. By order dated 13-5-1985 issued by the Project Director, NTTTC, the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director (Tech) in the National Technical Teachers Training College, Islamabad. On completion of the project, petitioner's services were transferred to the Project Implementation Cell of Education Project by order dated 2R-6-1993. While the petitioner was serving as Deputy Project Director, he was served with a notice for termination of service dated 8-9-1994 informing him that as the competent authority has allowed functioning of the Project Implementation Cell up to 30-9- 1994, his services would be terminated on 30-9-1994. The petitioner made representation by letter dated 28-9-1994 in which he, inter alia, requested for re-consideration of his case and for grant of pension and gratuity or he may be absorbed in an equivalent post under the Federal Government.
The petitioner does not seem to have received any reply and he, therefore, filed appeal before the Service Tribunal in which it was, inter alia, alleged that the project had not been closed, but the donor agencies had informed that the project may continue till 31-12-1994. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that as the petitioner was employed for a project, the notice for termination of his services was legal. As regards pension and gratuity, it was observed as follows: ' a civil servant, who has rendered at least ten years service is entitled to claim pensionary benefits.
In this case, the appellant has only put in 9-1/2 years service, which is less by six months. Under C.B.R. 371, the competent Authority is empowered to condone such type of gaps and examine all points as per para. 4 of the judgment, but the appellant, as the record shows, had not made any request to the competent Authority and this Tribunal, we are afraid, cannot exercise the power of the competent Authority and can adjudicate only on the orders issued by , the departmental authority as contemplated under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Therefore, this prayer is also misconceived."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had made representation for pension and gratuity and that in terms of Government instructions quoted in ground (c) of the petition, deficiency of six months or less in the qualifying service of a Government servant stands condoned and that the Tribunal had incorrectly interpreted these instructions.
Leave is granted to consider the question whether the petitioner is entitled to pension as claimed by him.