Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI VS Respondent: ABDUL RASHEED SOOMROHonorable Justice Syed Deedar Hussain ShahSh. Zamir Hussain,Abdul Ghafoor Mangi
2007 P L C (C.S.) 886
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ
CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI and others
Versus
ABDUL RASHEED SOOMRO and others
Civil Petitions for Leave to appeal No.3347, 3348, 3357, 3358, 3359 and 3360 of 2003, heard on 5th October, 2004.
(On appeal from the judgment/order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 31-10-2003, passed in Appeals Nos.427(K)CE of 2001, 431(K)CE of 2001, 430(K)CE of 2001, 429(K)CE of 2001, 302(K)CE of 2201 and 428(K)CE of 2001).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art. 212(3)---Reinstatement in service---Principle of consistency---Applicability---Employees opted for voluntary retirement but before any order was passed by the authorities, employees withdrew their options---Authorities enforced the option already given by the employees and retired them---Service Tribunal, on challenging such order by employees, reinstated the employees in service---Validity---Judgment of Service Tribunal was in consonance with the law---Principle of equity, fair play and justice .required that since employees in earlier appeals were reinstated in service by Service Tribunal, the case of present employees being on the same footings should also be accepted---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Leave to appeal was refused.
Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents (in all Petitions).
Date of hearing: 5th October, 2004.
JUDGMENT
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---As common question of facts and law is involved in the these petitions, which are directed against a' consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated 31-10-2003, passed in Appeals No.302(K)CE of 2001, 427(K)CE of 2001 to 431(K)CE of 2001, 490(K)CE of 2001, and 492(K)CE of 2001 to 494(K)CE of 2001, we intend to dispose of all the petitions by this consolidated judgment.
2. The respondents who are employees of the petitioners/corporation were given option to opt for Voluntary Retirement/Separation Scheme framed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The respondents herein exercised the option and intimated the Corporation but before the order or decision by the Corporation about their retirement was passed, they made applications for withdrawal of the said options. However, in spite of that, they were retired from service. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals, which were allowed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment impugned herein. Hence, these petitions.
3. She Zamir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is not in consonance with the law, therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.
4. Conversely, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents/caveator vehemently controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that on the identical facts and law Lahore Bench of the Tribunal allowed the appeals bearing Nos.704, 714, 725(L)/2000-CE filed by the employees of the petitioners. He further pointed out that the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal was maintained by this Court in Civil Petitions No.1739 to 1741 of 2002 vide judgment, dated 18-9-2003; that the case of the present respondents is very much identical, as the same facts and law are involved, which have already been settled by this Court.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the record available. Admittedly, on the same facts and law the appeals were allowed by the Bench of the Tribunal at Lahore, and its decision was upheld by this Court. It would be very much pertinent to refer here the relevant portion of the judgment of this Court, dated 18-9-2003, which reads as under:---
"MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this judgment, we intend to dispose of all the above appeals as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these appeals.
(2) Respondents, who are employees of the appellant-Corporation .were given option to opt for Voluntary Retirement/Separation Scheme framed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Respondents exercised of the option and intimated the Corporation' but before the former order or decision by the Corporation about their retirement in pursuance thereto, they made applications for withdrawal of the said options. However, in spite of that, they were retired from service. They filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, which have been accepted through the judgment against which these appeals are directed.
3. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in our discretion under Article 185 of the Constitution; as justice has been done. Dismissed."
6. Furthermore, the petitions in hand were placed before a Bench of this Court consisting of Honourable Chief Justice and two other learned. Judges on 15-9-2004, and the Court passed the following order:---
"Civil Petitions Nos.3347, 3348, 3357 to 3360 of 2003 are connected matters. The petitioners are directed to reinstate within a week the respondents of these matters on the same position from which they were retired. The issue of back-benefits will be considered when these petitions are decided on merits "
7. On Court's query Sh. Zamir Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, candidly conceded that the respondents have already been reinstated in service as ordered by this Court.
8. The impugned judgment is entirely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In any case, the well-settled principle of equity, fair play and justice requires that the employees of the petitioners in the above-referred appeals were reinstated into service by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the case of the present respondents is also on the same footings, and they cannot be denied of their legal and lawful right.
9. For the foregoing facts, circumstances and reasons, we are of the considered view that these petitions are without merit and substance, which are dismissed and leave to appeal declined.
M.H./C-15/SC Petition dismissed.