ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.----Petitioner is seeking the following relief(s) in the instant Petition: i) Declare that the letter dated 08.05.2013 as well as letter dated 02.07.2014 issued by the incompetent are illegal. ii) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 02.07.2014 including the MOD UO No, 4-14/2013-ASF dated 08.05.2013 and direct the respondents to implement the letter No, 60/A/57/SO/98-99/DF/ (O&D) dated 24th November, 1998.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Airport Security Force (ASF), Department of Civil Aviation vide Order dated 17.05.1976. Petitioner has averred that on 1.11.1981 she was promoted to the post of Inspector (BPS-16) and posted as Assistant Security Officer with effect from 01.11.1986 vide Notification dated 26.11.1986. It is further added by Petitioner that she was transferred from Karachi Airport to Islamabad Airport on directives of the Competent Authority vide order dated 24.08.1987; that Petitioner moved an application for resignation from her service due to domestic/family circumstances. Per Petitioner the said resignation was accepted by the Competent Authority and she was discharged from service vide Memorandum dated 05.05.1988. Per Petitioner, on 26.10.1991 she applied for the post of Security Officer (BPS-17) in the Airport Security Force, Civil Aviation Division through Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and was selected and appointed against the said post by the Respondent No,2 vide Memorandum dated 02.02.1993. Petitioner added that she rendered about 12 years of service in the Civil Aviation Authority against the permanent post. Petitioner further added that after break in the past service as Assistant Security Officer (BPS-16) with effect from 01.07.1976 to 05.05.1988 was regularized by the competent authority towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Article 361 of Civil Servant Regulations (CSR). As per averments in the memo. of Petition, the period of regularized service was included and added in the form of calculation of qualifying service of a Gazetted Government servant, by issuing a qualifying certificate/letter No,60/A/57/SO/98-99/DF/(C&D) dated 24th November, 1998 for the purpose of sanction of pension. It is further added by her that since the period of past regularized service in the same organization has been included and added at Col No,8 (ii) in the form of calculation of qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension the Petitioner is entitled to get all pensioner benefits of Government Service on reaching the age of superannuation/retirement that is, 16.03.2015. It is further averred by the Petitioner that she was granted Leave Preparatory Retirement (LPR) for 365 days with effect from 16.03.2014 to 15.03.2015 vide Memorandum dated 14.03.2014, Petitioner asserted that while preparing retirement documents for clearance of legal dues she was provided a photocopy of impugned order/MoD u.o No,4-4/2013- ASF dated 08.05.2013, whereby past service of the Petitioner towards qualifying service for pension was revised and forfeited under Article 420
(G) CSR. Petitioner added that the said impugned Letter dated 08.05.2013 was never served upon her but was kept secret in the office to deprive the Petitioner from pensioner benefits. Per Petitioner she filed grievance application to Respondent No,3, which was declined in the same terms.
Petitioner filed Appeal before Secretary Defence, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad on 06.06.2013 for review of order dated 08.05.2013; the said Appeal was referred to the Cabinet Secretariat, Aviation Division Rawalpindi on 26.09.2013. Petitioner further added that on 14.3.2014 she was informed about her retirement date that is, 16.03.2015 by the Respondent No,5. Petitioner asserted that she filed another Appeal on 03.06.2014 but, the Cabinet Secretariat, Aviation Division, rejected the said Appeal vide impugned letter No, 4- 14/2013-ASF dated 02.07.2014. Per Petitioner, she filed Appeal for review of order dated 02.07.2014 to the Joint Secretary, Finance Division, Regulation Wing, Islamabad but no response received by the Petitioner till 22.07.2014. Petitioner's assertion is that she attempted several times for redressal of her grievance, but no positive reply was given to her by the Authority concerned. Petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order/MoD u.o No,4-4/2013-ASF dated 08.05.2013 and 02.07.2014 respectively preferred this Petition on 14.11.2014.
3. Upon notice, Respondents filed comments and denied allegations levelled by the Petitioner.
4. Mr. Abdul Salam Memon, learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the decision taken by the Respondents vide Letter dated 08.05.2013 after about 15 years without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner is against the principle of locus penitential embodied in sections 20 and 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897. The said action is void ab-initio. That the decision taken by the Respondents under the prevailing rule that is, Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations is past and closed transaction which cannot be reopened at this belated stage; that the Petitioner's past service with effect from 01.07.1976 to 05.05.1988 had been included towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations, therefore, Petitioner is entitled to get pensioner benefits as qualifying services of a Gazetted Government Servant with effect from 01.07.1976 till the date of retirement from the concerned department/Respondents; that Petitioner has rendered about 12 years of valuable service with the previous department of the Respondents and had tendered resignation from service; that Petitioner subsequently applied for the post of Airport Security Officer through Federal Public Service Commission in the year 1992 and interruption in the service with effect from 01.07.1976 to 05.05.1988 was condoned and treated as leave for purpose of grant of pension, which is even otherwise protected under Article 418(b) of CSR. Per learned counsel subsequently rescinding the order without hearing the petitioner is illegal and unlawful. He next contended that pension is a part of Civil Servant's Retirement Benefits which is not a bounty or an ex-gratia payment but a right acquired in consideration of past services that cannot be denied. He added that pension is a vested right and legitimate expectation of a retiring civil servant. He further argued that right to pension is conferred by law and could not be arbitrarily abridged or reduced except in accordance with law. He lastly prayed for allowing the Petition by directing the Respondents to include the past service of the Petitioner for the purpose of pensioner benefits. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the case of Ikram Elahi Sheikh v. Director General, National Institute of Science and others (2006 SCMR 1986 = 2006 PLC (C.S.) 1126), Inayatullah Khan v. Secretary Food and others (2006 YLR 656), Adreshir Cowasjee Karachi v. Messrs Multiline Associate Karachi (PLD 1993 Karachi 237), Manzoor Hussain Khan v. Lahore and others (1992 SCMR 441), Additional Accountant General v. M.M. Malik (2012 PLC (C. S.) 1370), Chairman Selection Committee and others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmed and another (1997 SCMR 15), Akhtar Hussain v. The Superintendent of Police (1981 CLC 423), Rakhshinda Habib v.
Federation of Pakistan (2014 PLC (C. S.) 247), Secretary Government of Punjab and others v. M.
Ismail Tayer and 269 others (2015 PLC (C. S.) 296), Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust through M.D. Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Arif and others (2015 SCMR 1472) and Mian Tariq laved v. Province of Punjab (2008 SCMR 598).
5. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Butt, Deputy Attorney General representing the Respondents Nos, 1 to 5 has contended that the instant Petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution; that Petitioner voluntarily resigned from service and was discharged on 05.05.1988 after approval from the Competent Authority therefore, her past service stood terminated; that Petitioners re- appointment as Airport. Security Officer (BPS-17) in Airport Security Force through Federal Public Service Commission took place after more than four years; the said period of 4 years cannot be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pensioner benefits; that petitioner prior to reaching the age of superannuation opted to avail 365 days LPR and consequently the same was granted form 16.03.2014 to 15.03.2015 i,e, age of superannuation; that Petitioner during her service manipulated and succeeded in getting certificate of qualifying service for the period 01.07.1976 to 05.05.1988 which was subsequently rescinded in accordance with law; that in accordance with the provision of Article 420 of CSR interruption in the service of an officer entails forfeiture of her past service except in certain exceptions; that the Accountant General Pakistan Revenues (AGPR) re- examined the case of the. Petitioner and re-issued correct certificate; that verification of service of the Petitioner for the purpose of pensioner benefits is duty of AGPR and the department has no direct concern with the matter in question; that the application submitted by the Petitioner against the impugned revised service verification and for counting formal service from 01.07.1976 to 05.05.1988 was forwarded to Ministry of Defence for opinion; that after consultation with Finance and Accounts Office it was resolved that due to Petitioner's wilful resignation from service, the period of service before resignation has been forfeited under Article 420 of Civil Service Regulation; that claim of the Petitioner to include her service form 01.07.1976 to 05.05.1988 is already surrendered by tendering resignation; that Petitioner has filed the instant Petition with mala fide intention to gain undue and illegitimate pensioner benefits which if allowed will result into a considerable loss to government exchequer.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and case law cited at the bar.
7. l Perusal of record reveals that Petitioner after serving 11 years, 10 months and 4 days in the office of Respondent No, 05, resigned from 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.