Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ATTA MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi and othersHonorable Justice ABDUR RAZZAQUEM. Shoaib Shaheen,Sardar Riaz Kareem
2006 P L C (C
2006 P L C (C.S.) 1121
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Abdur Razzaque and Abdul Rashid Baloch, Members
ATTA MUHAMMAD
Versus
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi and others
Appeal No.l422(R)CW of 2002, decided on 11th September, 2004.
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----S.13---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4---Golden Handshake Scheme---Retirement---Increase in pay---Entitlement---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Appellant opted for Golden Handshake Scheme, but his option was not accepted and he continued to serve till his dismissal from service as a result of disciplinary proceedings against him---Appellant's appeal against order of his dismissal from service having been dismissed by Service Tribunal, appellant had filed petition before Supreme Court which was pending adjudication---Appellant had claimed that his option for retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme was not accepted and he continued to be in service and he was entitled to increase in pay announced for employees till his dismissal from service---Validity---Option of appellant for retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme had not been accepted and he continued to remain in service till his dismissal from service---Option of Appellant had become legally inoperative and appellant was not debarred from benefits of increase in pay scale---Appellant was entitled to first increase in pay scale announced during period in which he was in service, but he was not entitled to second increase in pay scale which had become effective after dismissal of appellant from service---Second increase in pay scale was not admissible to appellant as he was no longer in service at that time.
M. Shoaib Shaheen for Appellant.
Sardar Riaz Kareem for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st July, 2004.
JUDGMENT
ABDUR RAZZAQUE (MEMBER).---Facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant, then working as Senior Assistant in the Taunsa Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan, (The Bank hereinafter) opted for the Golden Handshake Scheme (GHS) announced vide Circular dated 13-10-1997. As his option was not accepted, the appellant continued to serve till his dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings, vide order dated 3-10-2000. The appellant's service appeal against the said order was dismissed by this Tribunal against which petition filed by him is pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
2. Case of the appellant in this appeal is that because his option for retirement under the GHS Scheme was not accepted and he continued to be in service, he was entitled to the increase in pay announced for employees of the Bank w.e.f. 1-10-1998 and increase sanctioned w.e.f. 1-10-2000 vide Circulars dated 17-5-1999 and 23-4-2001 respectively till his dismissal from service vide order dated 3-10-2000.
3. Respondents have filed objections opposing the appeal on grounds of limitation and estoppel. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that having opted for retirement under GHS Scheme, announced vide Circular dated 13-10-1997, the appellant ceased to be eligible for the increase on account of a provision in the circulars announcing the increase, that the revised pay structure and all other provisions contained in the Circular shall not be applicable to GHS optants. The counsel contended that the appellant had raised the issue of the benefits of the increase in pay scales with the Bank vide application dated 16-2-1999 but thereafter failed to file service appeal after the lapse of statutory period, indicating that he was satisfied. The counsel went on to state that again after his dismissal from service vide order dated 3-10-2000, the appellant moved an application dated 30-10-2000 to the same effect followed by another time-barred representation dated 13-7-2002. The counsel argued that the instant appeal was barred by proviso (a) to section 4 of the Service Tribunal Tribunals Act, 1973 and that it was not only time-barred but also hit by the principle of estoppel.
4. We have heard the parties, considered their arguments and perused the material available on record. Admittedly appellant's option for retirement under GHS was not accepted nor was he so informed. Therefore, he continued to remain in the service of the Bank till he was dismissed from service vide order dated 3-10-2000. In other words the option had become legally inoperative and thus, the contention that as an optant of GHS the appellant was debarred from the benefits of the increase in pay scales is not tenable. The first increase in pay scales was announced vide Circular dated 17-5-1999 and it to be effective from 1-1-1998. The appellant was in service and his option for GHS having not been accepted he was very much entitled to the said increase. As regards the second increase announced vide Circular dated 23-4-2001 and effective from 1-1-2000, the same was announced after the dismissal of the appellant and is not admissible to him as he was no longer in service at the time.
5. The contention that being no longer in the service of the Bank w.e.f. 3-10-2000 the appellant is not a civil servant under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, does not hold. Section 2(a) of the Act defines civil servant as "person who is or has been a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973) and shall include a person declared to be civil servant under section 2-A." Although there is no impugned order in this case, the appellant had submitted representations that remained un-responded and further because the matter relates to pay of the appellant for the period he worked for the Bank, we are inclined to condone the delay, if any, in filing the instant appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the appeal party and direct the respondent-Bank to allow the appellant the benefits of increase announced vide Circular dated 17-5-1999 for the period 1-10-1998 to 3-10-2000.
No order as to costs. Parties be informed.
H.B.T./121/FST Appeal partly accepted.