MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J. Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.5.2019 passed by respondent No.4/General Manager (HR&BP), PTCL, RTTS Building Tufail Road, Lahore Cantt. Lahore, whereby petitioner's application for grant of pension in terms of Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) was refused.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Lineman in Telephone and Telegraph Department (T&T) on 01.10.1987. Respondent-department introduced a Voluntary Separation Scheme in the year 2007. Respondent No.3 wrote a letter dated 15.11.2007 to the petitioner offering him VSS Package by preparing worksheet containing estimated benefits, assets, deduction and monthly pension etc. Final settlement amount was mentioned as Rs.1216740/- and monthly pension at Rs.5112/-. Petitioner accepted the VSS package and accordingly respondent No.3 issued an acceptance letter dated 05.3.2008 whereby it was mentioned that an amount of Rs.1,058,554/- had already been transferred into the account of petitioner. Petitioner approached respondents for payment as agreed in earlier letter/package, but his grievance was not redressed, which constrained him to file a writ petition bearing W.P. No.9676/2016 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 for decision of pending representation of the petitioner. However, claim of the petitioner was declined vide order dated 13.4.2017, which, was challenged by the petitioner before this Court through writ petition bearing W.P. 46045/2017 and vide order dated 17.12.2018 respondent No.4 was directed to reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with law, Rules and Regulations. Again, matter was decided against petitioner, vide order dated 21.5.2019 Hence, instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is entitled to payment of balance package_ amount and release of monthly pension as agreed in VSS Package but there is inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities which is absolutely unwarranted. Further contends that without any reason the claim of the petitioner was denied on the pretext that petitioner has joined service on 29.10.1995 instead of 01.10.1987. Further adds that while passing the impugned order respondent No.4 has misread the documents available on the record with regard to date of petitioner's appointment.
4. When confronted, learned Law Officer, assisted by learned counsel for respondent-department submits that factual controversy is involved in the matter which cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that the documents annexed with the petition show that the petitioner's appointment was made on 01.10.1987 instead of 29.10.1995. This fact is also established from offer letter dated 15.11.2007; wherein his date of joining is mentioned as 01.10.1987, under the heading of Employees Information. Under the Employee Eligibility Criteria, petitioner's qualifying length of service has been mentioned as 20 years. This pivotal aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by respondent-authority in view of available record, thus, it is apparent that respondent No.4 has not properly exercised the jurisdiction as no finding to this effect has been rendered by him.
7. Be that as it may, since the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the facts, thus, same does not fulfill the requirements of speaking order within the contemplation of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which binds the public functionaries to dilate upon all aspects of the matters presented before them, while determining rights of the parties and decide the same after application of mind, assign cogent reasons and pass speaking orders. Reference, in this regard, is made to Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd. Workers' Union v. Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd. (2010 SCMR 1475); Fasih-ud-Din Khan and others v. Government of Punjab and others"
(2010 SCMR 1778), Government of Pakistan through Director-General, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others v. Farheen Rashid (2011 SCMR 1), Messrs United Bank Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 856). Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 630) and Khalid Humayun v. The NAB through D.G. Quetta and others (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 194).
8. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed in the manner that impugned order dated 21.5.2019, is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Consequently, matter is remanded to respondent No.4/General Manager (HR&BP), PTCL, RTTS Building Tufail Road, Lahore Cantt. Lahore with the direction to decide the same afresh strictly in accordance with law, after hearing petitioner and all concerned, through a well-reasoned speaking order, preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).