ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No. D–1924 of 2009

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

FOR KATCHA PESHI

29.4.2010

Mr. S. Abdul Waheed Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Mian Khan Malik DAG alongwith Department Representative,

Pakistan Navy Lt. Comdr. Faheem Asghar Awan.

>>>>>>> <<<<<<<

Petitioner was employed as Honorary Officer at PNS Dilawar and was retired with effect from 18.5.2003 vide letter dated 4.6.2002 issued by Tahir Salahuddin TI(M), Commodore Drafting Authority, PNS Dilawar.

Pursuant to such retirement the petitioner was granted No Demand Certificate by Tariq Aslam, Surgeon Commodore, PNS Shifa Karachi. The petitioner was also issued Service Book and it appears that he was paid pension uptill 7.5.2009.

Through letter dated 20.6.2009 monthly pension of the petitioner was ceased, upon which petitioner has filed this petition praying that his pension be paid to him.

Learned DAG has stated that pension of the petitioner was ceased because much after his retirement he was found to have committed certain misconduct during employment and in respect of which some inquiry was held and on which order of cessation of pension was passed under Rule 5(b) of Pension Rule of Pension Regulation Volume I, Arms Forces 1999. The Rule 5 reads is as follows:

'5. Grant of Pension is Subject to Future Good Conduct and May be Withheld, Held in Abeyance or Paid to Wife or Other Department.

a. Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension or allowance.

b. In special circumstances, to be determined by the President, the pension (service, disability or family) children's allowance or gratuity granted to an individual or any portion of it, may be suspended or withheld. In exceptional cases, payment of part or the whole of the pension, allowance or gratuity suspended may, by the order of the President, be made to the wife or other dependents of the pensioner.'

The very heading of the rule shows that it applies on the future good conduct of the retired employee and not to the previous conduct of the employee.

Learned DAG, however, states that sub-rule (b) refers to ‘special circumstances’ in which the pension can be ceased but he was unable to explain or demonstrate as what precisely the term special circumstances denote.

To us, the word 'special circumstances' could only means such circumstances which may occur after retirement of the petitioner upon which his pension could be ceased. No record of inquiry is available before us nor we want to make any observation on it for that respondents may take any other action as may be permissible in law against petitioner but under the rules payment of pension cannot be stopped.

We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the respondents to release pension of petitioner.

Petition in above terms stands disposed off.

J U D G E

Aamir/PS