Case ID |
0c213cb8-b9d7-4b72-928a-7297abf14b4d |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
Appeal No. 229(L) of 1986 |
Decision Date |
Feb 03, 1988 |
Hearing Date |
Jan 12, 1988 |
Decision |
The relevant background giving rise to the present appeal is that the appellant, then an Assistant Lineman in the Respondent-Authority, requested premature retirement due to ill-health. This request was accepted by the competent authority, and by order dated 7-11-1982, he was allowed to proceed on Leave Preparatory to Retirement effective from 1-11-1982 to 31-10-1983. It was ordered that upon the expiry of this leave, he would be retired from service on 31-10-1983. The appellant's pension case was processed in his parent office and forwarded to the Budget and Accounts Department of the Respondent-Authority. However, the Budget and Accounts Officer rejected the pension claim on 24-6-1984, stating that the appellant's retirement was due on 3-9-1985 upon reaching the age of superannuation. The Officer did not understand how premature retirement was granted after only 20 years, 7 months, and 28 days of service, leading to this appeal. The Tribunal reviewed the relevant provisions of the Service Tribunals Act and the WAPDA Pension Rules. It was determined that the appellant was eligible for retiring pension under Rule 5(ii) of the WAPDA Pension Rules, which includes retirement for 'any other reason' beyond inefficiency, misconduct, or corruption. The Tribunal found that the appellant's premature retirement due to ill-health was covered by this provision, and the rejection of his pension was violative of the rules. Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the absence of a departmental appeal, as there was no statutory provision requiring such a remedy. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the retiring pension was directed to be granted to the appellant as per the rules. No costs were ordered, and parties were informed accordingly. |
Summary |
In the landmark case of FEROZE DIN vs WAPDA, adjudicated by the Federal Service Tribunal in Islamabad on February 3, 1988, the appellant successfully contested the rejection of his retiring pension by WAPDA. The appellant, an Assistant Lineman, sought premature retirement due to ill-health after 20 years, 7 months, and 28 days of service, which was initially approved by the competent authority. However, the Budget and Accounts Officer denied his pension claim, citing that retirement should occur upon reaching the age of superannuation in 1985. The Tribunal meticulously examined the Service Tribunals Act (LRR of 1973) and the WAPDA Pension Rules of 1977, particularly focusing on Section 5 regarding retiring pensions. Rule 5(ii) clearly encompasses retirement for 'any other reason,' not limited to inefficiency or misconduct. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's ill-health qualified under this provision, thereby entitling him to the retiring pension. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's preliminary objection about the absence of a departmental appeal, as the relevant statute did not mandate such a requirement. This judgment underscores the importance of comprehensive statutory interpretation and reinforces the rights of employees to fair pension adjudications. Keywords such as 'Federal Service Tribunal,' 'retiring pension,' 'WAPDA Pension Rules,' and 'Service Tribunals Act' are pivotal in this case, enhancing its relevance and searchability for legal professionals and researchers seeking insights into pension law and employee rights within federal institutions. |
Court |
Federal Service Tribunal
|
Entities Involved |
Budget and Accounts Department,
Budget and Accounts Officer
|
Judges |
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER)
|
Lawyers |
Ch. Riaz Ahmad,
Naeem Sultan
|
Petitioners |
FEROZE DIN
|
Respondents |
WAPDA
|
Citations |
1988 SLD 992,
1988 PLC 30
|
Other Citations |
Not available
|
Laws Involved |
Service Tribunals Act (LRR of 1973),
Water and Power Development Authority Pension Rules, 1977
|
Sections |
S.4(1)(a),
Chapter III, Rule 1,
Chapter III, Rule 5
|