' The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that he has not been granted pension/gratuity after his retirement from Government as Medical Superintendent, Munshi Hospital, Lahore on 31-1-1994. In this context, it is submitted that pension and gratuity was to be paid to be petitioner within one year without fail. However, the respondents withheld the pension on the ground that an inquiry was pending against the petitioner and as such No Demand Certificate could not be issued to finalize the pension papers.
2. The petitioner has alleged that in view of the provisions contained in Punjab Civil Servants Pension Rules, the pension of a Government servant could not be withheld for more than one year from the date of his retirement. Reference in this regard was made to Rule 1.8 of the rules ibid.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner, but that was found in his favour as he was exonerate of all the charges.
However, an order for de novo inquiry was made by the Chief Minister, Punjab on 29-8-1995, but that inquiry has not yet fmalized. The order of the Chief Minister, Punjab was assailed on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and that no de novo inquiry could be held as the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges.
4. It was further contended that even if the denovo inquiry was ordered, it should have been completed within one year and if it was not done so, the Government was bound to make the payment of full pension and gratuity at the end of the year following the date of retirement.
Reliance was placed on letter No,S(R)5-8/764/65/S.O.III, dated 1-2-1967.
5. It was also contended that production of No Demand Certificate was not essential as would be clear from Letter No,FD-SR-III-4-1/77, dated 14-4-1977 issued by the Government of Punjab, Finance Department. It was accordingly prayed that withholding of pension and gratuity was a mala fide act on the part of the respondents and amounted to gross violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner.
6. Notice in this petition was issued to the respondents with a direction that para-wise comments be submitted.
7. Para-wise comments have been filed on behalf of respondent No,3/Accountant-General, Punjab in which it was submitted that the pension papers were ready but could not be finalized as No Demand Certificate was received from respondent No, 1 . Respondent No,1 also submitted para- wise comments in which it was contended that the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, but a de novo inquiry was directed to be held by the Authority. It was further contended that since the de novo inquiry was yet in progress, therefore, No Demand Certificate could not be issued.
8. Lastly it was submitted that since it was a service matter, therefore, the petitioner should have availed the remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal and as such provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was pressed in action to challenge the jurisdiction.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record.
The petitioner retired from Government service on 31-1-1994. Since then he was awaiting for the release of his pension etc. Although the parties have not made it clear as to what type of inquiry was in progress against the petitioner, but the learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that a complaint was filed by a lady patient against two Women Medical Officers in the Munshi Hospital, Lahore during the period when the petitioner was performing his duty as Medical Superintendent in that Hospital. The complaint was basically against the two Women Medical Officers and since no action was allegedly taken by the petitioner, therefore, he was .Also involved in that inquiry being an administrative head of the Hospital. However, this fact is not denied by the other side nor any explanation is offered to that effect. On the contrary, it appears from the comments that the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, but the Authority concerned ordered de novo inquiry.
10. Now a question would arise whether the pension and gratuity of the petitioner can be withheld on the premises that some inquiry was in progress. In this context, it may be pointed out that law requires that the pension and other service benefits should be released to the retiring Government servant and if any inquiry is pending against him, the same shall be finalized within one year from the date of his retirement. In the instant case the petitioner retired on 31-1-1994 and as such his pension and gratuity alongwith other benefits should have been given to him within one year from the aforesaid date and in not doing so, the respondents have noted illegally and against the pension rules referred to above. The policy of the Government is also clear from the letters quoted above in which it has been directed that the pension cases should not be withheld beyond one year of the retirement of the Government servants. In such a situation respondents are acting with patent illegality by refusing the pension and gratuity to the petitioner as admissible to him under the law. The writ petition is accordingly accepted with the direction that No Demand Certificate shall be issued by the respondents immediately. The pension and gratuity along with other benefits if any, shall be released forthwith but in no case later than 10 days from today under intimation to this Court. The petitioner shall also be informed about the release of pension as he is suffering from cancer for the last about 6 months and is stated to be not in a position to move about. 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.