Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MEHTAB GUL VS Respondent: COMMISSIONER, AFGHAN REFUGEES, PESHAWAR
1995 P L C (C
1995 P L C (C.S.) 743
[Supreme Court or Pakistan]
Present: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ
MEHTAB GUL
versus
COMMISSIONER, AFGHAN REFUGEES, PESHAWAR and another
Civil Petition No. 319 of 1994, decided on 6th December, 1994.
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 2‑5‑1994, passed in Appeal 168(P) of 1994).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑‑Civil Service Regulations, R. 371‑A‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissing civil servant's appeal on assumption that not only he was temporary employee but office where he was employed was itself a temporary organisation‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider civil servant's contention that he having put in more than 10 years' service, even if his termination from service was valid, he was still entitled to pensionary benefits under R. 371‑A, Civil Service Regulations‑‑‑Such contention having raised question of law of public importance required consideration.
(Mir Ahmad Khan v. Secretary to Government and others Civil Appeal No. 574 of 1992).
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th December 1994.
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The services of the petitioner, who was serving as Store‑Keeper (B‑6) in the Afghan Refugees Organisation, Mardan, have been dispensed with on 1‑1‑1994. The petitioner challenged the above termination order before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in a Service Appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment on the ground that not only the petitioner was a temporary employee of the Afghan Refugees Organisation but that the office where petitioner was employed was itself a temporary organisation. The petitioner who is appearing in person has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
In support of the petition, it is contended by the petitioner that he had put in more than 10 years of service in Afghan Refugees Organisation and therefore, even if his termination from service was valid, he was entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 371‑A of Civil Service Regulations. Reliance is placed, in support of the contention, on an unreported judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 574 of 1992 (Mir Ahmad Khan v. Secretary to Government and others), decided on 7‑2‑1994 (30‑11‑1993).
The contention raises a question of law of public importance and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.
AA./M‑2240/S Leave granted.