WAZIR SHAKEEL AHMED, J.--- Heard. Record also perused.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the present respondents filed a civil suit against the petitioners and respondents Nos,8 to 10 before the court of competent jurisdiction on 12-10-2013 stating that their father namely Shah Nawaz s/o Shah Murad was initially appointed as work charge Mali in Pak PWD in the year 1953 at that time the maintenance of the Gilgit Airport was the responsibility of Pak PWD Department. In the year 1965 the services of the father of plaintiffs/respondents Nos,1 to 7 along with other government servants were shifted to Airport Development Agency (ADA) who performed their duties under Airport Development Authority Gilgit getting the pay from the above department till 1972 when the father of answering respondents along with other government servants were regularized as permanent servants vide letter No ADM- 11/WC-3/70/7376 dated 16-8-1972. In the year 1986 in the result of an agreement the maintenance staff of Airport Development Authority Gilgit were absorbed in Civil Aviation Authority in the light of which the absorbed Airport Development Authority personal were held entitled for all benefits as that of the personals of Civil Aviation Authority but to utmost disappointment of the father of the present respondents Nos,1 to 7, the present petitioner denied pension benefits to him with the plea that he was not completed minimum required 10 years service as permanent employee in Civil Aviation Authority.
3. It painful to observe that the father of respondents Nos,1 to 7 has gone to his account during the struggle of his pensionnary benefits A after serving about half a decade in the department without any fault of him regarding his non regularization.
4. As per contents of the plaint the answering respondents/plaintiffs were informed that the some, colleagues of their father namely Talib Hussain and Abdul Manan having the same service conditions were also denied their pensionnary benefits by the present petitioners who therefore were forced to file separate suit and the court of competent jurisdiction passed decrees in their favour and they have compensated in the light of above mentioned decrees/judgments in their favour. All the above facts up to the passing of the decrees in favour of the above named colleagues of the father of respondents Nos,1 to 7 namely Talib Hussain and Abdul Manan are not denied by the present petitioners as per contents of written statement dated 19-4-2012 filed before the trial court with the only objection in the para 8 of above written statement that as the plaintiffs/late father of plaintiffs Shah Nawaz was not party to the above suits hence the present suit of the plaintiff does not come in the domain of decrees passed in favour of above named colleagues Talib Hussain and Abdul Manan.
5. The trial court on the basis of divergent pleadings formulated 14 issues including that of relief.
The important and crucial issue No,13 is also reproduced as under:--
13. Whether as per court decision in case Talib Hussain versus CAA and Abdul Manan v. CAA. The deceased father of plaintiffs is also entitled to get the pension benefits from the defendants?
OPPS.
6. The present respondents in support of above issue relied on the judgments/decrees exhibited as Exhs.P/1 and P/2 before the trial court. The only difference about the case of the father of present respondents/plaintiffs and that of Abdul Manan son of Issa is that the father of respondents Nos,1 to 7 was initially appointed in the year 1952 as Mali in the Pak PWD Department while Abdul Manan plaintiff in Civil Suit No,76/92 was appointed in Pak PWD (work charge staff as engine driver) in 1955.
The present petitioners have in that suit also denied pensionnary benefits to said Abdul Manan stating that he was absorbed in CAA as fresh employee with effect from 1-7-1986 so he is not entitled for benefits because of his short length of service as has been exactly pleaded in the present case. The present respondents have also got exhibited another documents which is in fact an office memo of 10th March, 2010 addressed to the late father of respondents wherein it has been communicated to him that the benefits of the cases of Messrs Talib Hussain and Abdul Manan referred in his application cannot be extended to him as the cases are subjudice before the Chief Court Gilgit Baltistan. It is worth mentioning here that the above matters have already been disposed of by this court and in the light of the same the above named two incumbents of CAA who are admittedly the colleagues of the father of respondents are getting the pensionnary benefits.
7. In the light of what has been discussed above the objections of the present petitioners are not tenable that the benefits of the two decisions regarding the above incumbents cannot be extended in favour of the father of the present answering respondents by stretch of any imagination because as discussed above the case of the above two colleagues of the father of present respondents were same and identical in all respects, so it is hereby held that the findings of the two courts below which are based on the facts of the present case as well as that of the previous suits of same nature are well within four corners of facts and law involved in the case in hand therefore, by maintaining the same dismissed this revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit whatsoever. File be consigned to record after competition. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.