SHAHID KARIM, J.----This Constitutional petition challenges the order dated 2.7.2018 passed by the Deputy Director (Pension) PTCL, Employees Trust (PTET). This order was passed in compliance of this Court's earlier order in Writ Petition No.216996 of 2018 filed by the petitioner in which a directio n was issued to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner regarding the pension as per Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS).
2. In the particulars of the claim set out in the petition the petitioner joined service on 28.02.1987. On 28.02.1998 the petitioner opted for golden hand shake under VSS. Thereby according to the petitioner the total length of service came to 11 years. The petitioner was issued a certificate on 27.02.1998 in which it was mentioned that the pension and medical facilities were available and allowed to the petitioner . Reliance has also been placed on a letter dated 15.02.2001 in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner served from 28.02.1987 till 28.02.1998 i.e. for 11 years. Further reliance has been placed on a service certificate issued by the respondent No.1 in which the term of service has also been mentioned as 11 years. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that the pension is not being given to him despite the fact that he has more than 10 years of service to his credit and which makes him eligible for the grant of pension under VSS. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of service certificate and release of pension on 10.11.2009. This date is significant as the petitioner had retired under VSS on 28.2.1998 and the application was moved after 11 years of the golden hand shake. In response to the said application according to the learned counsel reply was made by the General Manager Central Zone, Lahore on 14.11.2009 which is to the following ef fect: "Mr. Talib Hussain ex-Telegram Messenger opted VSS in 1998. His service is eleven years when PTCL announced "Voluntary Separate Scheme" vide Letter No.P A&P.6-19/97 dated 18-10-1997 (copy attached) and he was getting medical facility as per existing rules vide clause IX against medical book No.1052. The Ex-official has intimated that his medical facility has been stopped and giving reason that is not available in SAP for the same. The Ex-official is quite worried on the stoppage of medical facility and requested for the restoration of medical facility at the earliest because he is entitled for the medical facility in the light of VSS announced in 1998. Pension facility allowed."
3. Once again the service of the petitioner has been acknowledged as 11 years . Therefore, the petitioner relies upon certified documents issued by the officers of PTCL, purportedly according to which the service period of the petitioner is 11 years. This fact is denied by the respondents. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it has categorically been brought forth that no pension was authorized to the petitioner due to the fact that he had less than 10 years service to his credit and therefore no pension was issued to him. According to the reply , the petitioner joined PTCL, department on 26.02.1990 and retired under VSS on 28.02.1998. Thus the total length of service comes to 8 years and 2 days. It is not in dispute that in case the petitioner has less than 10 years of service, in terms of VSS he is not entitled to the grant of pension.
4. This petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly , the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and the cause of action had accrued in the year 1998 when he separated from PTCL, having availed VSS. This petition has been filed in the year 2019 and no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner who is indolent in the prosecution of his remedies. Plainly , the petitioner was denied pension from the very inception and it is incredulous to conceive that he slept over the issue for so long and failed to assert a right which he thought was done to him.
5. Secondly , the question regarding the length of service is a complex and disputed question of fact. The respondents consistently allege that the petitioner had less than 10 years of service and in fact was inducted in the department on 26.01.1990 as against the claim of the petitioner to have been inducted on 28.02.1987. As explicated the petitioner relies upon two documents issued by the departmental officers who acknowledged the service of the petitioner to be 10 years. However , the respondents have vehem ently denied the authenticity of these documents and on 27.5.2019 this Court was compelled to require the General Manager (HR-A) PTCL to submit an explanation regarding the discrepancy in the record of the petitioner maintained with PTCL as also whether the documents had been issued by the officers of PTCL or not. The origin al record was produced today in Court and which has been perused by the Court as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner . The entire record does not contain the documents relied upon by the petitioner . Also interestingly the pivotal document on which reliance can be placed is the one which was dated 09.03.1998 in which clearly the service period has been mentioned to commence on 26.02.1990 by the petitioner himself. The said document has been duly signed by the petitioner . In view of this document to which there is no rebuttal, the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold and claim his service to have commenced on 28.02.1987 for which there is no record available. The documents relied upon by the petitioner are denied by the respondent-department to have been issued by any of its officers and it would not be appropriate therefore to rely on these documents for the proof of which evidence will have to be recorded and these proceedings are not suited for the resolution of such a dispute. Apart from the document referred to above, there is also a copy of declara tion duly signed by the petitioner in which the petitioner himself has mentioned the date of joining as 26.02.1990. This clearly shows contradictory dates in the service record. However , I am inclined to give greater weight to the documents signed by the petitioner and the declaration so made.
6. In view of the above this petition is without merit and is dismissed.