ABDUL HAMEED KHAN vs MAQBOOL AHMED KHAKWANI, PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CELL (S&TE WING), MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, ISALAMABAD and 2 others
The petitioner, a former Deputy Director (Tech.) in the National Technical Teachers Training College, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner's services were terminated upon the completion of a project, and his subsequent claim for pension and gratuity was rejected by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had only completed nine and a half years of service, falling short of the ten-year requirement. The Tribunal further held that it lacked the authority to condone the service gap, as that power rested with the competent authority under C.B.R. 371. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had indeed made a representation regarding pension and gratuity. The Court observed that government instructions allow for the condonation of a deficiency of six months or less in qualifying service. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits, specifically addressing the correct interpretation of government instructions regarding the condonation of service deficiencies.
- Is a Service Tribunal empowered to exercise the authority of a departmental competent authority to condone a deficiency in qualifying service?
- Does a deficiency of six months or less in the qualifying service of a government servant stand condoned under government instructions?
- Can a service appeal be dismissed solely on the basis that the appellant failed to request the competent authority to condone a service gap?
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
- C.B.R. 371
ORDER
1. ' 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 28-6-1993. 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.
2. 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 pensioner benefits. In this case, the appellant has only put in 9-1/2 years' service, which is less by six months.
3. 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.
4. Therefore, this prayer is also misconceived." 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.