MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- The petitioner who is son of a deceased employee of the High Court namely Nazir Ahmad, through instant writ petition seeks a direction to respondent No. 1 for issuance of appointment letter in his favour as Naib Qasid in the establishment of Sessions Division, Bahawalnagar on the basis of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. It has been averred in the petition that since Muhammad Nazir (petitioner's father) died on 9.7.1994 while performing his duties as Naib Qasid in Sessions Division, Bahawalnagar and that the petitioner being his son applied for appointment as Naib Qasid in the light of above-said rule 17-A, which reads as under:- "Whenever a Government servant dies while in service or is declared invalidated/incapacitated for further service, one of his unemployed children shall be provided a job Tribunal posts in BS-1 to 5 in the department in which the deceased Government servant was serving, without observance of formalities prescribed under rules/procedure provided such child is otherwise eligible for the post."
It has further been contended by the petitioner that said rule has been adopted by the Lahore High Court; hence, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Naib Qasid being son of a deceased employee.
2. Report and parawise comments have been received from the District & Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, wherein it has been submitted that as one of the son of said deceased employee namely Naseer' Ahmad. Real brother of the petitioner was appointed on 26.9.1994 by, extending the benefit of above rule, hence, the petitioner could not avail the same 'benefit because under the said rule, such a benefit was available.For only one unemployed child of the deceased employee.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently disputed the above-mentioned statement of fact by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar and insisted that said Naseer Ahmad was appointed purely on merits and not by extending the benefit of Rule 17-A, hence the record maintained by District & Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar regarding appointment of Naseer Ahmad, be requisitioned. Accordingly, the said record was called for.
4. Today, the Superintendent of District & Sessions Judge has produced the said record which contain the minutes of the meeting of Departmental Selection/Promotion Committee No. 1 held on 26.9.1994 relating to selection and appointment of Stenographers, Junior Clerks, Naib Qasids and Chowkidars, etc. At point No. . 2 of the said minutes, case of Naib Qaids came under consideration before the Interviewing Committee and it was observed as under:- "Mr. Nasir Ahmad son of Nazir Ahrnad has been found suitable candidate for the post of Naib Qasid.
The Committee further observed that the said Nasir Ahmad is the real son of late Nazir Ahmad, ex- Naib Qasid of this Sessions Division. The said ex-Naib Qasid had died during service on 9.7.1994.
Pursuant to the instructions contained in letter No. SORIV(S&GAD)1-6/78, the Government of the Punjab Services General Administration & Information Department, the Committee unanimously approved the name of Mr. Nasir Ahmad for the appointment of Naib Qasid."
5. A perusal of the above-mentioned minutes and the findings of the Interviewing Committee make it abundantly clear that Naseer Ahmad petitioner's brother was given benefit of Rule 17-A, reproduced above. Hence, it is not possible to extend the same benefit to the petitioner as well because under the said rule such a benefit is available for only one child of a deceased employee.
6. Keeping in view the above narration of facts, I am satisfied that since the benefit of Rule 17-A (supra) already stood availed of by the brother of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the said rule again and because of his failure on open merit, he was rightly ignored for appointment of Naib Qasid being not eligible/fit for such post. This petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.
2005.R. 1335 [Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad] Present: RASHID ALI MIRZA and RASHID MAHMOOD ANSARI, MEMBERS Muhammad Bashir Versus M/s. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited), Islamabad through its Chairman/President/Chief Executive and 4 others Appeal No. 246(K)(CE) of 2003, decided on 16th June, 2005, Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- --S. 4--Withdrawal of option to avail of Golden Hand Shake Scheme--Prayer of--Question of-- Appeal before Service Tribunal--Held: Contention that appellant had submitted that said scheme was for a particular period and thereafter closed. And said scheme so prepared by ADBP could not supersede the directions of the Establishment Division and that such option could be withdrawn before the date of expiry and before the implementation of relieving order--Impugned order set aside--Appeal allowed.
(Paras 1,6)
Withdrawal of option to avail of Golden Hand Shake Scheme could be made before it was acted upon.
For the Appellant: Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sanaullah Noor Ghauri, Advocate. Date of hearing: 11th June, 2005.
RASHID AU MIRZA, MEMBER--- Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme Order No. (Pension)11/851/2003/1367, dated 11.1.2003 and refusal by the respondents to withdraw his option to avail of the said Scheme, the appellant hereinabove, preferred appeal under Section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as mentioned above. Briefly facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Assistant Director in the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank announced Voluntary Golden Hand Shake Scheme vide Circular No. PD/30/02, dated 19th August, 2002. The last date for submission of the option under the said Scheme was September 5, 2002 till the close of office hours. Subsequently the last date for submission of the options was extended to 12th September, 2002 vide Circular Letter No. PD/27/2002, dated 6th September, 2002. On 5th September, 2002 respondent No. 5 the then Regional Manager of the respondent-Bank at Quetta who was the Controlling Officer of the appellant contacted the appellant on phone and enquired if the appellant has opted for the said Golden Hand Shake Scheme to which the appellant replied in negative. The appellant told the then Regional Manager (respondent No. 5) that whereas the appellant has filed in the required. Form for exercise of the option, yet the appellant has not finally decided. The respondent No. 5 tried to pursue the appellant to exercise the option and wanted the appellant to submit his option form to, him. Subsequently it came to the notice of the appellant that his name has been included in the list of the optees of the Golden Hand Shake Scheme. On the query the respondent No. 5 also confirmed that he has sent his name amongst the optees of the Scheme. The appellant called on the respondent No. 5 at Quetta and 'protested against inclusion of his name in the list of the optees, whereupon the respondent No. 5 suggested that if the appellant wants to withdraw the option he should move an application to this effect. Accordingly at the instance of the eespondent No. 5 the appellant addressed an application dated 10th September, 2002 but no reply to the said application has been received by the appellant. The appellant further states that on 15.1.2003 he was informed by respondent No.. 3 on telephone that his request for Golden Hand Shake. Scheme has been accepted and the appellant shall be relieved of his duties with effect from'17th January, 2003. Accordingly the appellant was relieved of his duty with effect from 17th January, 2003 vide letter issued by respondent No. 4. Soon after receiving the information about arbitrary decision of the respondent-Bank the appellant addressed a letter dated 15th January, 2003 in which the appellant requested for withdrawal of the impugned orders which at the relevant time were not yet delivered to him. The appellant addressed appeal/representation dated 14th February, 2003 to the -respondents which remained unreplied, hence this appeal.
2. The respondents filed their parawise comments stating therein that the option of the appellant was processed alongwith other applications of the staff and conveyed acceptance of option as well as relieving him from the Bank service on 17th January, 2003 vide Office letter dated 11th January, 2003. The appellant was rightly relieved of his duties. The option VGHSS bear the signature of the appellant duly witnessed by two independent persons and same was received by fax in the Regional Office, Quetta on 6th September, 2002. The respondent further stated that option once exercised is irrevocable and cannot be withdrawn, The respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeal 3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi has contended that the alleged option was withdrawn on 10th September, 2002 vide Annexure-E produced on record alongwith Memo. Of appeal by the appellant even before the last date of option which was 12th September, 2002. The learned counsel has further stated that the appellant had not accepted the benefits and as such has not received any compensionetary benefits and has filed this appeal before Tribunal challenging his Relieving Order. The learned counsel has further referred Service Appeals Nos. 271, 278(K)(CE)/2001 and 289, 1408, 1480, 491(K)(CE)/2001, Miss Nasra Naz and others Vs. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan where this Tribunal has held that under the circumstances where options are withdrawn and benefits are not received, the employees are entitled to be reinstated in service. In this judgment, this Tribunal has also relied upon the below mentioned cases:--
(i) Judgment dated 2.10.2002 passed by the FST Bench at Lahore, in Appeals Nos. 704, 714 and -725(L)(CE)/2000 filed by Rana Ashiq Ali and 2 others Vs. State Life Insurance Corp.
(ii) Order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 3651-L.To 3653-L of 2002 in appeals filed by State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Vs. Rana Ashiq Ali and 2 others.
(iii) Judgment dated 18.9.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1739, 1740 and 1741/2002 filed by State Life Insurance Corporation of Paksitan Vs. Rana Ashiq Ali and 2 others.
(iv) Judgment dated 31.10.2003 passed by the FST, Bench at Karachi, in Appeals Nos. 302, 427 to 431, 490, 493 and 494(K)(CE)/2001 filed by Abdul Latif Maitlo and others Vs. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan.
5. The learned counsel has further submitted that on 29th December, 1997 an Office Memorandum No, 35/2/1997 RAN 3 was issued by Government of Pakistan Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division wherein it has been mentioned in para 21 that since the implementation of the Scheme has now been deferred, it has been decided that the Government Servants who. Have either applied for withdrawal or want to withdraw their options for retirement under the above Scheme may be allowed to do so.. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Leave to Appeal No. 306(K)(CE)/2001 had reinstated the employees on the ground that the decision of the Cabinet Division was not followed by the Pakistan Steel Corporation. The Memorandum has been incorporated in Appeal No. 302(K)(CE)/2001, Abdul Latif Maitlo and others Vs. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and inserted by this Tribunal at para 21. It is contended that the said above appeal is identical to the cases as mentioned above, therefore, the same principle shall also apply to the case of the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised the objection that the option once exercised within the prescribed period shall be irrevocable and cannot be withdrawn as per the Scheme dated 19th August, 2002. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that said Scheme was for a particular period and thereafter closed and this Scheme so prepared by the A.D.B.P.
Cannot supersede the directions of the Establishment Division and the case-law cited above and that this Tribunal as well as the Service Tribunal at Lahore has already taken a positive view that such option can be withdrawn before the date of expiry and before the implementation of the Relieving Orders. We are of the view that the principal as laid down in other judgments so referred shall also apply to the case of the appellant and, therefore, we set aside the orders of relieving the appellant under Golden Hand Shake Scheme by the respondents and order his reinstatement in service with all back benefits and continuity in service.
7. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties (under registered cover) and to the relevant quarters under rule 21 of Service Tribunal. .