1. SYED SAEEDUDDIN NASIR, J.--- The plaintiff filed present suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of Rs,50 Million in respect of damages, severally and jointly against the defendants, with the following prayer:--- To declare that the plaintiff cannot be arbitrarily and summarily terminated/retired/grounded from their service. A. To declare that the Termination letter No,SVP/HR&AP38123/08 dated 17th March, 2008 Local Admn. Office Order No,F00308099, issued by the defendant No,4 upon the plaintiff is void, arbitrary, whimsical, illegal and liable to be withdrawn. C. To declare that in the event of retirement/grounding of plaintiff earmarked for B-747 Aircrafts, the defendant No,4 may provide full retirement benefits to the plaintiff as offered by it earlier to its other officers, D. In the alternative declare that while retiring/ground Flight Engineer the defendants shall ensure that the plaintiff is retained in service as he has longer years of remaining service which is compatible with the duration for which B-747 Aircrafts remain in operation.
2. E. To restrain permanently to the defendants their agents, servants, subordinates, attorneys, workers, official, officers, representatives, men or any other person or persons working under him or on his behalf of for his interest, from taking any action on the basis of termination letter dated 17-3- 2008 or any adverse action against the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever, till final decision of the above suit. F. To direct the defendants to pay compensation of Rs,50 Million in respect of damages, severally and jointly to the plaintiff as follows:--- (a)Loss of Remuneration Rs, 1,50,00,000 (b)Loss of Reputation Rs, 1,00,00,000 (c)Damages in account of Malfearence/ misgearenceRs, 50,00,000 (d)Damages on account of torturous act.Rs, 1,00,00,000 (e)Damages on account of Fall of health.Rs, 50,00,000 (f)Loss of Licence Rs, 50,00,000 (g)Total Rs, 5,00,00,000 G. Cost of the suit. H. Any other relief(s) may deem fit and proper according to the circumstances of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the plaint are as under:--- The plaintiff was serving as Flight Engineer and Registered with Pakistan Engineering Council under Provision of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976.
4. The plaintiff was serving his duties with defendant No,1 as Flight Engineer since June, 1978 with professional commitment, honestly and dedication, and there has been no complaints whatsoever from any corner against the plaintiff during his service, the plaintiff was serving as flight Engineer on Boeing B-747 Aircrafts operated by the defendant till 16th March, 2008. The plaintiff went into a shock upon receipt of the termination letter dated 17-3-2008 issued by the defendant with the subject; termination of service due to technological redundancy vide letter No,SVP/HR&A P- 38123/08 dated 17th March, 2008 Local Admn Office Order No, F00308099. Plaintiff without having the approval from the Board of Directors as per Rules and Regulations as such the termination letter issued by the defendant No,4 according to the plaintiff is liable to be withdrawn in the interest of justice. Many other flight engineers filed suit in the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, however, the plaintiff on the assurance of defendant No,4 that the plaintiff shall be given advantage of any outcome of the pending litigation in the Hon'ble High Court as given to other flight engineers did not file any suit, so also the plaintiff on further assurance of defendant No,4 that in case of reinstatement, he will be reinstated on his job, accepted the cheque of amounts given by the defendants.
5. It is stated in the plaint that it is a matter of fact that presently the defendant No,1 have a fleet of 08 B-747 Aircrafts out of these Aircrafts one B-747 would be excluded from the present Fleet by the end of the year 2008 while the entire fleet is expected be phased out of operation by the year 2011 or even beyond. It may be added that these B-747 aircrafts are mostly scheduled for local flights or flights to Middle Eastern countries particularly to Saudi Arabia for Hajj and Umra Flights operated by defendant No, 1.
6. According to the plaintiff presently there are about 80 engineers (71 are trained while 9 are untrained) serving the defendant No,1 's Fleet of B-747 Aircrafts, under the present regulations/terms and conditions of service prescribed by the defendant No,1 for Flight Engineers, Every Flight Engineer is entitled to minimum payment of 50 hours of guaranteed flying allowance per month. The Additional hours of flying/work are accounted for separately and salary package is enhanced accordingly.
7. In the year 2005 the defendant No,1 decided to reduce employees in its service, consequently the defendant No,1 retired a number of officers by offering them a comprehensive retirement package, this included salary, allowances and perquisites in lump sum with effect from the date of retirement till the date of their scheduled retirement at the age of 60 years, In addition medical and passage facility for self and family upto 60 years, group insurance benefits, provident fund, pension, gratuity was also allowed. From the contents of Retirement package it is evident that the defendant had offered full retirement benefits to those officers who were forcibly retired owing to the necessity of rationalization and reorganization of its service structure, it may be added that similar schemes were implemented by the defendant No,1 for employees other than pilots and flight Engineers vide Admn Order No,15/97 dated 31-10-1997, order No, 40/99 dated 30-9-1999. By the end of year 2008, i,e, prior to Hajj operation 2008, the B-747 fleet operated by defendant No,1 would be reduced to seven operational aircrafts.
8. In order to continue the Flight Operations of eight B-747 aircrafts the defendant No,1 would require crew of about eight sets of crew per aircraft, consequently eight flight engineers having B-747 would also be required, thus a total of sixty four flight engineers would be required for operation of eight B-747 aircrafts.
9. In view of above position of B-747 aircrafts, the defendants prepared a scheme of retention of services of those Flight Engineers having about less than three years of service left, while retiring or grounding the services of those flight engineers who had service of three years or more.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff had five years left from his retirement but the defendant sent the Termination letter to the plaintiff as well.
11. The Board of Directors in its meeting held on March 1, 2008 had no item on agenda regarding the issuance of Termination Letter to Flight Engineers but the defendant issued the termination letter to the plaintiff while the defendants knew very well that the plaintiff had five years left of his services with the defendant who also deprived the plaintiff from the benefits which the defendant already gave to the employees who obtained the facility of package of retirement.
12. In Suits Nos.774/08 and 780/08 filed by various other flights engineers in this Hon'ble Court, the defendants has entered into out of court settlement and has reinstated all the flight engineers over those who had not filed any suit, however the plaintiff was not reinstated by the defendants.
13. Even otherwise in terms of clause-5 of the termination of services due to technical redundancy dated 17-3-2008, the defendants have undertaken to provide an opportunity of re-employment to the plaintiff, in case any recruitment of flight engineers in the defendants Corporation within one year of issuance of the letter the defendants shall provide the plaintiff an opportunity of employment which commitment the defendants are not fulfilling now despite reinstatement of other flight engineers, On 30th July, 2008 defendants issued another Admn Order No,45/2008 whereby a lucrative package for the mandatory Retirement of flight engineers on attaining the age of 57 years was introduced. It is submitted that the plaintiff was 55 years and 3 months of age and the defendants could have afforded the plaintiff the same package which was given to other flight engineers, It is the case of the plaintiff that due to the above acts of the defendants, the plaintiff received injuries both financially, physically and mentally and due to the above said acts of the defendants the licence of the plaintiff has been expired as such the plaintiff is unable to do job as flight engineer in any other company and the plaintiff's health deteriorated due to stress and mental distress and suffered loss of Rs,50 Million (Rupees five Crore) as such the plaintiff is demanding compensation of Rs,50 Million as damages from the defendants jointly and severally through this Hon'ble Court as follows:--- (a)Loss of Remuneration Rs,1,50,00,000 (b)Loss of Reputation Rs,1,00,00,000 (c)Damages in account of Malfearence/misgearenceRs, 50,00,000 (d)Damages on account of torturous act.Rs, 1,00,00,000 (e)Damages on account of fall of health.Rs, 50,00,000 (f)Loss of Licence Rs, 50,00,000 (g)Total Rs, 5,00,00,000 The defendants have filed written statement, wherein the defendants stated that, the plaintiff was appointed as Cadet Flight engineer w,e,f, 1st June, 1978 in the defendant corporation, however his services were terminated due to technological redundancy w,e,f, 17-3-2008 vide Admin Order No,9/2008. However the plaintiff was given all the benefits to which he was entitled. The redundancy compensation in accordance with Admin Order No,17/2001 issued by defendant Corporation has also been granted to the plaintiff at the time of his termination. The fact of such termination was very well in the knowledge of all the concerned officers, The termination was not unauthorized or without approval of the competent authority or in violation of any rules or regulations. No assurance of special benefit or treatment was given to the plaintiff, over and above the benefits which were given to other Engineers; in fact the plaintiff has accepted his termination with all the benefits having been given to him for which he was entitled.
14. He has not approached the Court of law nor he has returned the amount of terminal benefits which were given to him through cheques by defendant Corporation being full and final settlement of his accounts. No assurance was given to the plaintiff that in case the other Engineers are reinstated the plaintiff shall also be reinstated with them. The other Engineers have returned the amount paid to them through cheques including the amount of provident fund and severance pay (four months gross salary) and because of out of Court settlement after institution of the case by referred Engineers, they were taken back in service. Since the plaintiff has not returned any amount and he has not approached the court of law and he has not entered into any settlement, hence he was not reinstated. As a matter of fact the plaintiff has accepted the termination with benefits and he was no more aggrieved against his termination.
15. The defendant corporation used to make policies and plans from time to time for smooth running of the airline and for that matter according to need of the Corporation the defendant corporation has planned to phase out B-747 aircraft.
16. The number of Engineers employed by defendant Corporation and the number of aircrafts of the defendant Corporation is a matter of record which will speak' for itself. So far as payment to flight engineers is concerned, that is also in accordance with agreed terms which are also a matter of record which will speak for itself.
17. All the policy matters are decided by the competent authority of defendant Corporation and referred Admin Order is a matter of record which will speak for itself. It is however submitted that no discrimination has been made by the defendant corporation with the plaintiff and all benefits which become due under the scheme have been given to the plaintiff. The management decision depends upon the circumstances and requirement as the relevant time which is a matter of record which will speak for itself.
18. All those Flight Engineers who have attained or would be attaining the age of 57 years as on 31st July, 2008 were mandatorily retired and Admin Order No,45/08 is referred in this regard. It is not disputed that the plaintiff had five years left to his retirement if he was not terminated at the relevant time but that does not create any right in favor of the plaintiff as alleged. The defendant corporation has made arrangements depending upon operating flight schedule as per requirement at the relevant time.
19. There is no element of discrimination while making the policies and implementing the same. The terms and conditions of service of plaintiff as agreed do not put any embargo on the defendant Corporation not to terminate the plaintiff due to technological redundancy. At the relevant time B- 747 aircrafts were grounded and were no more in operation as such it was decided to terminate the services of the Flight Engineers which were not required on the other aircrafts introduced in the defendant Corporation. Due to non-operation of B-747 aircrafts, all Flight Engineers of such aircrafts became surplus, hence the above referred policy was made and the services were terminated but with lucrative benefits. There was element of arbitrariness or discrimination. Only those Flight Engineers were taken back into service who had filed the cases in the court of law and they have settled the matter amicable out of Court and the plaintiff was not amongst those. All such Engineers have returned their letters, and cheques of payments to the defendant corporation.
20. Any Flight Engineer who was not party in those proceedings has not been reinstated keeping in view that they have accepted the termination and received benefits as full and final settlement and they were no more aggrieved.
21. ' The requirement of clearance is formality which is required to be fulfilled by the plaintiff. However, the amount of final settlement has been received by him, thus he has received the amount as full and final settlement and no cause is left for agitating by the plaintiff further. The plaintiff has now shown his willingness to pay back the amount but technically he has never returned any amount at the relevant time. Even no amount has been returned till today. The so-called claim of damages is incorrect, false, fabricated besides exaggerated one. The plaintiff is also not entitle for any permanent injunction and even the suit for injunction is not maintainable in law.
22. The suit is not maintainable in law and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief(s) claimed. He has not come with clean hands. The suit is barred by various provisions of Specific Relief Act including sections 42 and 56 thereof. The suit is filed with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives to extort money from the defendant Corporation.
23. Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court:
1. Whether the termination letter dated 17-3-2008 is arbitrary or void and liable to be struck down?
2. Whether the defendant appointed any other Flight Engineer in the organization within one year from the date of termination effective from 17-3-2008, if so, its effects?
3. Whether the entire amount due and payable to the plaintiff has been paid, if so, its effect?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for reinstatement and/or compensation, if so, what amount?
24. The plaintiff filed his affidavit in evidence on 13-2-2010, wherein he narrated the same facts as stated in the plaint. The plaintiff's Examination-in-Chief was held on 22-5-2010, wherein he produced his affidavit in evidence as Ex.P/1, the ID card as Ex.P/2, licence to fly as Exh.P/3, the letter dated 17-3-2008 from defendant as Ex.P/4, the list of Flight Engineers marked as 'X', photocopy of retirement order dated 13-9-2005 marked as X/1, the photocopy of Admin: Order No,15/97 dated 31- 10-1997 marked as X/2, the photocopy of Admin: Order dated 30-9-99 No,40/99 marked as X/3, the photocopy of Mandatory Retirement Order dated 30-7-08 marked as X/4, the photocopy of Legal notice dated 25-8-2008 No,40/99 marked as X/5, the photocopy of its reply marked as X/6, the three personal crew schedules of March, June and July of 2008 marked as X/7, 8 & 9. (X/1 to X/9 learned DC objects that these are the photocopies).
25. The plaintiff's Cross-Examination was held on 31-7-2010, wherein he stated that there are different officers in PIA and their terms and conditions are settled as per different admin: orders, His service was terminated by order dated 17-3-2008 and benefits were given to him as per admin: Order No,17 of 2001 of PIA. His retirement age would complete on 16-112-2012, at the age of sixty years, He do not know that by subsequent order No,45/2008, the PIA has reduced the retirement age to 57 years of Flight Engineers, He was made payments vide order dated 17-3-2008 Exh.P/4 and till today he has not returned it because it has not been demanded back from him by PIA. He had not filed any suit/proceeding before any Tribunal/Court against PIA for his reinstatement in service, by challenging order Exh.P/4. Other flight engineers were also terminated from service by different orders, and some of them had challenged those termination orders in court and some of those were taken back by way of compromise in court. The flight engineers were terminated, from service because at that time all 747 aircrafts were grounded by PIA. It is fact that after some of those aircrafts were again commissioned for domestic flights only. 747 Aircrafts were substituted by 777 aircrafts, and those do not have flight engineers, At the time of order Exh.P/4 he was given part- payment of Rs,55,28,367 as per para 6 of Exh.P/4. He has not given his I.D. Card and clearance certificate from relevant departments to PIA. He has not received the remaining of full benefits as per order Exh.P/4. His grievance is that he should be given full benefits as per order Exh.P/4. It is incorrect that his claim made vide para 34 of Exh.P/1 is wrong or baseless. He has not filed any evidence in support of his claim in said para 34 (a to f) of Exh.P/1.
26. Defendant examined Muhammad Shafique Khan son of Muhammad Afsar Khan. D.W 1 has filed his affidavit in evidence dated 9-4-2011. The said D.W. Was examined on 9-4-2011, who produced his affidavit-in-evidence as Exh.D/1, the authority letter in his favor as Exh.D/2, the extract of minute of PIA Board, dated 1-3-2002 as Exh.D/3, the certified copy minutes Nos.1 to 1/7 as Ex.D/4, the certified copy of PIA letter dated 17-3-2008 as Mark X, the certified copy of PIA letter dated 17-3-2008 as Mark X/1, the certified copy of Cheque dated 17-3-2008 as Mark X2 and its annexure as Mark X/3, the list of Flight Engineers prior to 17-3-2008, as Mark X/4, the list of Flight Engineers w,e,f, March 2008 as Mark X/5, the list of Flight Engineers as on 30-3-2009, as Mark X/6, the list of Flight Engineers who were not re-instated as Mark X/7, the certified copy of Admin: Order No,17/2012 as Mark X/8, the admin: order No,40/99 as Mark X/9 and order No,15/97 as Mark. X/10 (Note:- The above documents have been marked due to objection of learned advocate for the plaintiff as having been not filed with written statement or the affidavit; let this objection be decided by Hon'ble Court.
27. The defendant Cross-Examination was held on 9-4-2011, wherein he stated that I am serving in PIA since last fifteen years, He has not been given authority to give evidence by the Board of Directors, Voluntarily states that, Exh.D/2 has been given by the General Manager who is Attorney of PIA. He has not filed the letter of said Attorney-ship, with his affidavit. He had signed his affidavit in the new Annexe of this Hon'ble Court. By Mark X/2, the plaintiff was given part-payment and the rest was to be paid on submission of clearance form. The flight engineers mentioned in Mark X/5 were re- instated in pursuance of out of court settlement, on account of decision of the management, but at present he does not have its details. He does not know whether that decision was taken by the Board. The Flight Engineers of Mark X/5 had returned their cheques of part-payments. I do not know whether those flight Engineers were written letters by the PIA to return the amount of part-payment.
28. They had not written to the plaintiff to return the amount of part-payment. The order of Bulk appointments and re-instatements can be issued by the Board. He does not know whether ninety days previous notice is to be given before termination order. He does not know whether the plaintiff was given such previous notice. All the flight engineers of Mark X/5 had not filed cases against PIA.
29. He do not know the number of flight engineers who had filed cases against PIA. Flight Engineers were not illegally terminated from service and contrary to clause-9 of Exh.D/4. Minute No,1, the Exh.D/4 is signed by Deputy General Manager, C&B. It is incorrect that the contents of para 9 of my affidavit are contrary to clause-9 of Exh.D/4. The aircraft B747 aircrafts(sic) in operation at present.
30. He does not know the exact number of B747 aircrafts in operation at present. He does not know the number of B747 aircrafts in operation at the time of Bulk termination order of Flight Engineers, He thinks that 90% of B747 aircrafts are in operation at present. In 2008 90% of B747 aircrafts were in operation. He knows that plaintiff had at one time worked as Acting General Manager. Plaintiff has not been punished for having worked dishonestly. Termination order of plaintiff has not been finalized. The plaintiff will be issued Pension Book after submission of clearance form. All the other flight engineers have not been re-instated as per clause-5 of Mark X/1. The plaintiff was not given opportunity mentioned in clause-5 of Mark X/1.
31. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record of the case file in the form of pleadings of the parties and evidence led by them, and my issue wise finding thereon is as under:--- ISSUE No,1:---
(1) Whether the termination letter dated 17-3-2008 is arbitrary or void and liable to be struck down?
32. It is the case of the plaintiff, which the plaintiff has stated in the plaint as well as in his Affidavit-in- Evidence that the services of the plaintiff were terminated vide; Termination Letter dated: 17-3-2008 issued by the defendant No,4 with the subject as termination of service due to technological redundancy vide letter No, SVP/HR&A P-38123/08, the plaintiff went into a shock upon receiving the aforesaid letter, inasmuch as the plaintiff was not expecting such an action without affording an importunity to the plaintiff of being heard by the defendant No,4. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the defendant No,4 served the said letter of termination upon the plaintiff without having approval from the Board of Directors as per Rules and Regulations. The witness of the defendant in his cross-examination has stated that "I do not know whether ninety days previous notice is to be given before termination order. I do not know whether the plaintiff was given such previous notice." At the end of his cross-examination, the witness of the plaintiff has further admitted that "The plaintiff was not given opportunity mentioned in Clause-5 of Mark-X/1" the Termination Letter. The evidence of the plaintiff is un-rebutted as far as the aforesaid two facts are concerned that firstly; neither the prerequisite approval of the Board of Governors was obtained by the defendant No,4 before serving upon the plaintiff the termination letter, secondly; nor the 30 days prior notice was served upon the plaintiff before his termination as A aforesaid. The plaintiff was also not afforded an opportunity of being heard before his termination of service.
33. I, therefore, hold that admittedly the Termination Letter dated 17-3-2008 arbitrary, void ab-initio and liable to be struck down. The issue is answered accordingly in affirmative.
34. ISSUE No,2:-
(2) Whether the defendant appointed any other Flight Engineer in the organization within one year from the date of termination effective from 17-3-2008, if so, its effects?
35. In terms of Clasue-5 of the termination letter, on the so-called ground of technical redundancy, the defendant No,4 was supposed to provide re-employment to the plaintiff, if during one year of termination letter, there was any recruitment of the flight engineers in the corporation. The defendants reinstated several flight engineers on their service by way of settlement outside the Court in Suit No,779/2008 and Suit No,780/2008. In June, 2008. The plaintiff should have been given benefits of Clause-5 of the termination letter dated 17-3-2008, whereas no such benefit was extended to the plaintiff, which is an out an out act of discrimination. The defendant's witness in his Examination-in-Chief has produced a list of flight engineers which shows the strength of Flight Engineers as on 30-9-2009 as "Exh.X/1" which shows a total of 36 Flight Engineers, The list of Flight Engineers who were reinstated with effect from 17-3-2008 is produced by the defendant's witness as "Exh. Mark-X/5", which shows a total number of 72 Flight. Engineers, who were reinstated. In his Cross-Examination the defendant's witness has categorically stated that "All the Flight Engineers of Mark-X/5 had not filed cases against PIA". He further stated in his Cross-Examination that "The aircraft B747 is in operation at present. I do not know the exact number of B-747 aircrafts, and I do not know the exact number of B-747 aircrafts in operation at present. I do not know the number of B-747 aircrafts in operation at the time of bulk terminations order of Flight Engineers, I think 90% of B-747 aircrafts are in operation at present. Again says that in 2008, 90% of B-747 aircrafts were in operation."
36. This statement of the defendant's witness is in conflict with whatever, the said witness has stated in para 9 of his Affidavit-in-Evidence which reads as under:--- "At the relevant time B-747 aircrafts were grounded and were no more in operation and as such it was decided to terminate the services of the Flight Engineers which were not required on the other aircrafts introduced in the defendant Corporation. Due to non-operation of B-747 aircrafts, all Flight Engineers of such aircrafts became surplus, hence the above referred policy was made and the services were terminated but with lucrative benefits, It is denied that there is any element of arbitrariness or discrimination as wrongly pleaded. By the plaintiff."
37. However, the plaintiff is one of those Flight Engineers whose services was terminated under the technological redundancy and were not reinstated under Clause-5 of Termination Letter, whereas many other Flight Engineers were reinstated.
38. The defendant has taken the plea in his Written Statement as well as Affidavit-in-Evidence that the plaintiff was not amongst those Flight Engineers who had approached the Hon'ble Court and entered into out of Court Settlement, however, only those Flight Engineers taken back and reinstated into service who had filed the cases in the Court of Law and they have settled the matter amicable out of Court. The Flight Engineers who were not a party in those proceedings have not been reinstated keeping in view that they have accepted the termination and received benefits as full and final settlement and that they were no more aggrieved persons.
39. This argument is devoid of any force inasmuch as if the defendants had reinstated some of the Flight Engineers who had not filed any cases in the Court of Law as per the Cross-Examination of the witness of the defendant to the effect that "All the Flight Engineers of Mark-X/5 had not filed cases against PIA". Meaning thereby that the defendant No,4 also reinstated some of the Flight Engineers who had not filed any cases against the defendants, however, singling out the plaintiff arbitrarily for no reason at all. This issue is also answered in affirmative.
40. ISSUES Nos.3 and 4
(3) Whether the entire amount due and payable to the plaintiff has been paid, if so, its effect?
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for reinstatement and/or compensation, if so, what amount?
41. Since both the aforesaid issues are correlated, therefore, the same are being dealt with together and are being answered as follows:--- That vide Letter dated 30-7-2008 issued by Admin Letter/Order No,45/2008 whereby the defendants offered a Lucrative Package for the mandatory retirement of Flight Engineers on attaining the age of 57 years, However, the plaintiff who was 55 years 3 months of age, was not given the same package and thereby discriminated against. If the plaintiff had not been discriminated against and had not been terminated forcibly his retirement would have fallen due on 16-12-2012 at an age of 60 years, The defendant's witness along with his Affidavit-in-Evidence has produced "Exh. Mark-X/10". The Admin Order 15/97, dated: 31st October, 1997. Wherein in Para 2 it is stated that:--- "Salary, allowances and perquisites as admissible to a regular employee of his substantive pay group and rank in lump sum with effect from the date of retirement to date of reaching sixty years as per personal record with the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "intervening period". The said lump sum payment shall include payment for accumulated privilege leave/leave preparatory to retirement, as per the Corporation's Regulations. The said lump sum payment shall be subject to the recovery/adjustment of any amounts due to the Corporation from such employee against any account/head."
42. In the year 2005 the defendant No,1 decided to reduce the employees in its service and consequently the defendant No,1 retired a number of officers by offering them a comprehensive retirement package, this included salary, allowances and perquisites till the date of their scheduled retirement at the age of 60-years, In addition medical and passage facility for self and family upto 60-years i,e, group insurance group benefits, provident fund, pension and gratuity was also allowed. From the contents of retirement package it is evident that the defendant had offered full retirement benefits to those officers who were forcibly retired owing to the necessity of rationalization and reorganization of its service structure, it may be added that similar schemes were implemented by the defendant No,1 for employees other than pilots and flight engineers vide Admn. Order No,15/97 dated 31-10-1997 Order No,40/99 dated 30-9-1999, the copies of Letter of retirement/retirement package dated 13-9-2005, is annexed as D-1, Admin Orders 15/97 and 40/99 are already filed with the memo. Of plaint as Annexures D-2 and D-3 respectively) Exh.
43. For the intervening period such employees shall remain entitled to:
(1) Medical and passage facilities for self and family as would have been admissible to him as a regular employee before reaching the age of 60 years, After attaining the age of 60 years, these aforesaid facilities shall be governed by applicable rules/ regulations for retired employees. For the purpose of calculating eligibility for passage facilities after attaining the age of 60 years, the intervening period shall be counted towards services.
(2) Admissibility of Group Insurance benefits and Insurance against Provident Fund contribution.
(3) NOC for transfer of Corporation's telephone installed at the residence of such employee, if any, provided the transfer fee is paid by him.
(4) In addition to the above lump sum payments/benefits, such employees shall be entitled to the normal retirement benefits of Provident Fund, Pension, Commutation and/or Gratuity as per applicable rules.
(5) Additionally, PIA's contribution to the employee's Provident Fund Account for the intervening period shall also be paid along with the dues in lump sum.
(6) The aforesaid Mandatory Scheme shall not be applicable to those employees who may attain the age of sixty years as on or before 1st July, 2000, but have already proceeded on LRP, prior to issuance of this Admin Order.
(7) The settlement of final accounts for such employees shall be subject to completion of a Clearance Certificate, which has been simplified to ensure expeditious finalization of all related Sections / Departments.
(8) The provisions of this Admin Order shall apply and prevail notwithstanding anything contrary in any Admin Order, Office Order, Circular or Policy.
44. None of the aforesaid entitlements were granted to the plaintiff, I, therefore, hold that the entire amount due and payable to the plaintiff has not been paid, to which the plaintiff is entitled i,e, salary, allowances and other benefits up to the age of retirement till 16-12-2012. Therefore, Issues Nos.3 and 4 are answered in negative.
45. For the aforesaid reasons and findings given on the issues I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for reinstatement, however, since now the plaintiff has attained the age of superannuation, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated in the amount claimed in the suit, and since the value of Pak rupees deteriorated to a great extent since filing of the suit till today, therefore, I decree the suit as prayed, however, the amount if any, which has already been received by the plaintiff shall be deducted from the decretal amount.