Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH VS Respondent: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARDHonorable Justice Saad Saood Jan
1989 S C M R 2067
1989 S C M R 2067
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Mian MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD'Y‑ and others Respondents
Civil Petition No.824 of 1981, decided on 30th July, 1988.
(From the order dated 14‑12‑80 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.200/400 of 1979).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Contributory Provident Fund‑‑Petitioner was not disputing that Contributory Provident Fund was payable only to such persons who were not entitled to pension‑‑Petitioner had been held entitled to receive pension as such could not resist the demand for the refund of the Contributory Provident Fund already paid to him‑‑Petition being without any merit was dismissed.
Kh.Muhammad Asif, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th July, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner joined service on 1‑3‑1948 in the Transport Department of the Punjab Government as Traffic Manager. Subsequently, the Provincial Government constituted the Punjab Road Trasnport Board, and together with the other staff, transferred the services of the petitioner to the Board. He served the Board till 1969, when he proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement. At the time of retirement, the Board made him the following payments:‑‑
1. Gratuity Rs.30,000 2. Contributory Provident Fund and interest thereon. Rs.22,037.57 3. Bonus Rs.2,562.75
After his retirement he claimed that he was an employee of the Provincial Government and that he was entitled to receive pension. His status as Government servant and entitlement to pension were accepted and the Board was directed to make its contribution towards the leave salary and pension payable to him. After some correspondence between the Government and the Board in which the Government took conflictory positions, it was finally decided that before the pension was paid to the petitioner he should refund the gratuity as well as the contribution made by the Board towards the contributory provident fund already paid to him. The petitioner refunded the gratuity but resisted the return of the contributions made by the Board towards his Contributory Provident Fund. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Contributory Provident Fund is payable only to such persons who are not entitled to pension. That being so, the Learned Tribunal was right in holding that after the petitioner has been held entitled to receive pension he could not resist the demand for the refund of the Contributory Provident Fund already paid to him. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.A.K./M‑973/S Petition dismissed.