RASHID ALI 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 Respondent 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 un-replied, 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.