PROVINCE OF SINDH vs Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Province of Sindh impugning the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which allowed the service appeal of the respondent. The respondent, a civil servant whose correct date of birth was 1-3-1941, was inadvertently retired prematurely on 28-2-1999 based on an erroneous date of birth recorded in the police record. The core legal question concerned whether a civil servant is entitled to relief and consequential benefits including pro forma promotion when prematurely retired due to a departmental mistake regarding his date of birth. The Supreme Court held that the department cannot take advantage of its own unjustified act of omission and commission, finding the Tribunal's order directing a revised retirement notification, fixation of pay and pension, and consideration for pro forma promotion to be just and proper. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a government department cannot prejudice a civil servant's statutory rights and benefits by relying upon its own administrative mistakes.
- Whether a civil servant prematurely retired due to an erroneous date of birth in departmental records is entitled to revised retirement benefits and pension?
- Can a government department take advantage of its own mistake or unjustified act of omission to deprive a civil servant of legal dues?
- Whether the Service Tribunal is competent to direct the department to consider a civil servant for pro forma promotion when he was wrongly retired before attaining superannuation?
' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Province of Sindh, the petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 25-4-2001 of learned Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi delivered in Service Appeal No,387 of 2000, whereby said appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed.
2. The respondent was appointed as A.S.-I. On regular basis WI 1-11-1959. His date of birth is 1-3-1941 and it is reflected in service book. On the basis of said date, the date of superannuation was 28-2- 2001. Inadvertently, his date of birth in police record was shown as 1-3-1939. He was retired from service on 28-2-1999. After following usual procedure, he filed departmental appeal challenging Notification dated 20-2-1998 and also claimed consequential benefits of promotions. But the same was dismissed vide order dated 18-10-2000. Thereafter, he filed appeal before Tribunal, which was allowed with the following observations:-- ' "The Assistant Advocate-General while admitting the fact that the appellant was wrongly retired, claimed That it was due to bona fide mistake and not due to any mala fide intention and, therefore, conceded that based on this fact the Tribunal may pass suitable order in the light of prayers of the appellant."
3. The respondent was granted reliefs in terms of judgment dated 25-4-2001 of learned Service Tribunal.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was not entitled to any relief after his retirement from Government service. It is also urged that Tribunal seriously erred by allowing appeal of the respondent without appreciating law and principles governing the terms and conditions of a civil servant. Learned counsel also argued that the dues of a civil servant after his retirement could not be settled by learned Tribunal.
5. Learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to issue revised notification retiring the respondent w.e.f, 28-2-2001 on the basis of his correct date of birth. The petitioner was also directed that the respondent's pay and pension were to be fixed on the basis of revised date of retirement and all consequential benefits arising therefrom till date of his retirement, were to be paid in full. It was also ordered that the department may place the case of the respondent before Departmental Promotion Committee and, if he was otherwise eligible and there was a vacancy existing at the time of his antedated retirement, a pro forma promotion could be allowed to him to enable him to draw revised benefits including pay and pension.
6. We have noticed that the respondent was deprived of his legal dues/benefits due to mistake committed by the department and now the department cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own unjustified act of omission and commission. The order of the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted.
7. Inconsequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- GUL MUHAMMAD HAJANO, vs PROVINCE OF SINDH Chief Secretary, Sindh 2010 PLC (C.S.) 137
- MUHAMMAD YOUNAS and another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 4 others 2008 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 149
- ZULFIQAR KHAN, EX-ELECTRIC EXAMINER UNDER ELECTRIC FOREMAN, PAKISTAN 2016 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 163