MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.--- Through instant petition, petitioner has sought direction for respondents to release his pension and other benefits, with the following prayer:- "Under the circumstances it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to release the pension and other service benefits of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Senior Master (BS-17) on 03.09.1959 by respondent No,1 and posted at Lawrence College, Ghora Gali, Murree. After completion of Ph.D (History) on Commonwealth Scholarship, petitioner was deputed as Principal, Divisional Public School, Model Town, Lahore for three years vide notification dated 20.09.1969 issued by respondent No,
1. Petitioner was also granted two advance increments vide letter dated 29.09.1970, issued by respondent No,
1. The deputation period of petitioner was later on extended for two times.
Thereafter, petitioner was deputed as Principal at Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed, Arab-Pakistani School, Abu Dhabi for two years vide notification dated 29.05.1980. Later on, same was also extended.
Petitioner applied for optional retirement, which was granted.w,e,f, 02.09.1984, vide notification dated 20.03.1998. Petitioner furnished requisite documents for fixation/release of pension and other service benefits but despite repeated requests needful has not been done. Hence, instant constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite lapse of 33-years, petitioner's pension and other benefits are not being released by respondents without any lawful justification. He adds that impugned inaction on the part of respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. Conversely, Law Officer submits that retirement notification of petitioner was issued under Rule 3.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules ("Pension Rules"), according to which optional retirement is given after completion of 25-years of service but petitioner's service is less than 25 years. He adds that petitioner availed extraordinary leave for 02-years, 05 months and 20 days w,e,f, 12.08.1966 to 02.02.1969, thus, said period cannot be counted towards qualifying service in view of Rule 2.7 of the Pension Rules. He further submits that petitioner is not entitled to receive pension and other service benefits.
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. Undeniably, Government of the Punjab, Education Department/ respondent No,1 accorded approval to opt retirement in favour of petitioner w,e,f, 02.09.1984 under Rule 3.5(i) of the Pension Rules, vide notification dated 20.03.1998. The operative part Of the notification reads as under:- NOTIFICATION No,80(8-1)/1-36/96: Sanction is hereby accorded to optional retirement in favour of Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad Akhtar, Senior Master, Lawrence College Ghora Gali, Murree, working as Principal in Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Arab Pakistani School Abu Dhabi (U.A.E.) with effect from 2.9.1984 (A.N.) under Rule 3.5(i) of the Pension Rules."
6. Notification No,PF/1-36/SO(S-I)/96 dated 05.09.2002, issued by respondent No,1, is reproduced as under:- "Subject:- RETIREMENT FROM THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, W.E.F, 2.9.1984 CERTIFICATE THERETO, Please, refer to your request of August, 2002, to be read with No,P-II/HM/2199 dated 11.8.1996 from the A.G. Punjab, Lahore and Notification No,SO/S-I/1-36/96 dated 2.3.1998, on the subject noted above.
It is hereby certified that you Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad Akhtar S/o Chaudhry Khurshid Ahmed Bajwa, N. I .
C . No .270-33-11-5804 of Lahore-II, after serving the Education Department, Government of the Punjab w.e.f, 3.5.1959 to 2.9.1984 in Pakistan, as well as, out of Pakistan, STAND RETIRED, w,e,f, 2.9.1984."
7. The respondents have admitted in the report and parawise comments that petitioner has been working on deputation and issuance of retirement notification dated 20.03.1998 has also been conceded. Undeniably, respondents are under a legal duty to decide the pensionary matters of government servants within a period of two weeks in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court_ in the case of Hafi Muhammad Ismail Memon, Advocate (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 35), the operative part of which is reproduced hereunder:- We, therefore, direct that all the Government Departments, Agencies and Officers deployed to serve the general public within the limit by the Constitution as well as by the law shall not cause unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing the payment of pensionary / retirement benefits cases in future and violation of these directions shall amount to criminal negligence and dereliction of the duty assigned to them. Thus having noticed such miserable condition prevailing in the department particularly relating to the payment of the pension to retired Government servants or widows or orphan children, we direct all the Chief Secretaries of the Provincial Governments as well as the Accountant Generals and the Accountant General Pakistan Revenue, Islamabad, to ensure future strict adherence of the pension rules reproduced hereinabove and clear such cases within a period not more than two weeks without fail."
8. Moreover, in presence of categorical, specific, clear and unambiguous admission on the part of respondents with regard to issuance of retirement notification of petitioner, they are bound to award pension and other service benefits to him. Reference can be made to G.R. Syed v.
Muhammad Afzal (2007 SCM R 437) and Amir Ali v. Indus Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (2004 YLR 1576).
In the case of G.R. Syed supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "7. It is a settled proposition of law that under Order XII, rule 6 of C.P.C. the Court is empowered to pass a judgment on the basis of admissions of facts by the addressee made by the parties to their pleadings, at any stage of the proceedings. The learned High Court to adjudge the controversy between the parties placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of Amir Bibi v.
Muhammad Khurshid and others 2003 SCM R 1261 and applying the rules laid down therein concluded that as the admission of the petitioner was specific, clear, unambiguous, categorical and definite, therefore, the trial Court had rightly granted decree under Order XII, rule 6 of C.P.C. As such under the circumstances, reiterating the principle laid down in the reported judgment we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment admits of no interference.
8. As a result of the above discussion petition is dismissed and leave declined."
9. Petitioner had been denied his lawful right for a pretty long period of more than 33 years. Such attitude of respondents is highly condemnable. As per mandate of Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner being a citizen of this country, has a right to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law. The Constitution casts responsibility upon functionaries of the State to ensure rule of law. Furthermore, the Courts are bestowed with sacred obligation to enforce fundamental rights of the citizens in the discharge of judicial functions.
10. Learned Law Officer argued that respondent No,1 was not competent to regularize the extra ordinary leave period. When confronted whether said notification was ever withdrawn/rescinded by the competent authority, he frankly conceded that it still holds the field, thus, this argument has no force.
11. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and respondents are directed to implement retirement notification dated 20.03.1998 and redress grievance of petitioner in the light of observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon supra, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Compliance report shall be furnished to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).