' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.---The Appellant was Senior Broadcasting Engineer in the Respondents Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. He was on deputation abroad and failed to obtain further extension in secondment beyond five years of his deputation/Secondment. He retired from service w.e.f. 10-5-2001. He did not . Prefer any departmental appeal against his retirement dated 10-5-2001. Before his retirement, he returned to the Respondents Organization for joining his duties, but he was treated as absent from duty w.e.f. 18-2-1982 after the expiry of five years of his deputation, vide memorandum dated 12-11-2001, which is reproduced as under: ' Registered A/D.
' PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ' (HEADQUATERS, ISLAMABAD)
' No. Admn-11114(62)/90 Dated 12-11-2001.
' MEMORANDUM ' S. Athar Saeed, SBE, PBC, Karachi was allowed to join as Radio Technician in Ministry of Information, Sate of Behrain with the condition that he will pay his contribution towards pension, Benevolent Fund, GP Fund, and Group Insurance regularly at the prescribed rates in foreign exchange vide PBC, Hqrs, Memorandum No.PER-IV/3(4)/77 dated 18-2-1977. He did not remit the above said contributions regularly which was one of his term of secondment. He failed to obtain further extension in secondment beyond five years. Therefore, he has been treated as absent from duty with effect from 18-2-1982 after the expiry of 5 years of his deputation/secondment. He also failed to pay pension contribution during his posting abroad. He has therefore ceased to be Civil Servant under FD-18, with effect from 18-2-1987 as being absent from duty. The amount of contribution remitted by him at the fiery belated stage is being remitted to him separately.
2. This issue with the approval of competent authority.
' Sd/- (Fazal Hussain) Admn. Manager (Personnel) For Director General.
2. The appeal was pending for pre-admission hearing, when the Appellant expired on 15-8-2003.
Consequently, his legal heirs made application dated 12-1-2004 for joining them as legal heirs of the deceased Appellant.
3. Since the Appellant had expired during the pendency of the appeal, question arose whether his legal heirs could be joined as party/legal heirs to continue the proceedings before this Tribunal or the appeal abated due to the death of Appellant.
4. On the above question, we have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. The learned counsel, argued that right to sue in such cases, being inheritable on death of deceased Appellant, his legal heirs were entitled to continue the proceedings launched by the deceased and the appeal would not abate due to the death of Appellant. In support, of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on a DB judgment of the apex Court reported in 1982 SCMR 157 and another DB judgment of the Sindh High Court reported in 1992 PLC (C.S.) 986. In the first judgment, referred above, leave to appeal was granted to consider the above mentioned case. In the second case of Sindh High Court in the case of compulsory retirement of the employee, challenged through writ petition, it was held that in case of death of the employee during the pendency of writ petition, cause of action would survive in favour of heirs of the deceased employee.
5. On the above question of abatement of the appeal due to the death of deceased, leave to appeal was also granted by a DB judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1989 SCMR
268. However, in the Full Court judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1991 SCMR 1192, it was held as under:-- "5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Bilal, Advocate for the appellants and Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the question involved in this case is one of refund of salary in connection with refixation of pay in service, therefore, the proceedings for the recovery of the emoluments alleged to be recoverable, initiated by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants did not abate. The Service Tribunal, therefore, was fully competent to adjudicate upon the matter. This contention has, however, no merit. A 'civil servant' has been defined in section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. A right of appeal under the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 has been given to a civil servant aggrieved by any final order whether original or appellate made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service. The appellants admittedly are the legal heirs of the deceased civil servant and there being no provision in the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 to provide any remedy to the successors-in-interest of a civil servant the learned Tribunal, in our view, was correct in holding that the appeal before it stood abated and the same is hereby maintained.
6. Before parting with the judgment, we may, however, add that the appellants are at liberty to approach a civil Court of competent jurisdiction to seek their redress, if so advised.
7. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs."
6. In view of the above relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1991 SCMR 1192, we have no alternative but to dismiss the application of the legal heirs to join them as party in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal also fails, as it stands abated. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. As mentioned in the above judgment, the legal heirs of the deceased Appellant are at liberty to approach a civil Court of competent jurisdiction to seek their redress, if so advised.
7. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters as per Rule-21 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1974.