' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against judgment dated 19-1-1993 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No,271(L) of 1989.
2. Relevant facts briefly mentioned are that respondent Shamshad-ulHaq was employed by WAPDA as Assistant Lineman towards February, 1978. While performing his duties on electric pole he got electrocuted and fell down sustaining "crush fracture of the body of the tenth thoracic the resulting in Paraplegia". WAPDA Medical Board of 25-7-1985 gave opinion that damage sustained by respondent Shamshad-ul-Haq was of permanent nature. The opinion was conveyed by Medical Superintendent WAPDA Hospital, Lahore to Sub-Divisional Officer, IInd Division, Mian Channu and other concerned authorities. Result of the medical examination is reproduced below:-- ' No,HOSP/30593(3)Retd: 5114, dated 30th July, 1983 ' The Sub-Divisional Officer,
(E) WAPDA 2nd Division.
' MIAN CHANNU .
' Subject: MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
' Medical Board ha's examined Mr. Shamshad-ul-Haque, A.L.M. On 25-7-1983 in WAPDA Hospital, Sunny View, Lahore. The person was electroctuted while working on an electric pole and fell down sustaining crush fracture of the body of the tenth thoracic vtb., resulting in paraplegia.
' In the opinion of the Board, the damage sustained is permanent one and the person is no more fit for service in WAPDA. He may be retired out of service on medical grounds with full benefits as admissible under the rules. His disability is attributable to service in WAPDA. The loss of earning capacity is estimated as 100%.
' The opinion of the Medical Board on prescribed proforma duly countersigned by D.G., M.S. WAPDA is enclosed.
' DA/one. (Sd.) (Dr. Khalid Javed), M.B.;B.S., F.R.C.S. (Edin)., Medical Superintendent."
3. On receipt of medical opinion matter was examined by the concerned Administrative Authorities of WAPDA and eventually respondent Shamshad-ul-Haq was ordered to be retired from service vide Letter No,3630-36, dated 27-2-1985, making it operative from 30-7-1983. It appears that appellants declined to pay pensionary benefit and medical expenses incurred by respondent till letter dated 27-2-1985 regarding his retirement from service on account of total disability was issued. Representation was made by the respondent but in vain.
4. Respondent Shamshad ul Haq ultimately filed Service Appeal No,271 (L) of 1989 before Federal Service Tribunal which was accepted in the following terms:- "13. There is no doubt about the fact that relief in this rule can be admissible, only for treatment in WAPDA Hospital and that the Authority is not liable for reimbursement of expenditure on purchase of medicines or for specialist consultations at residence. In the present case we have seen that the appellant was discharged from WAPDA Hospital by the Medical Superintendent on 30-7-1983.
Letter dated 30-7-1983 and the S.D.Os'. Letter dated 2-1-1985 (Annexure R/E) provides us with reasons to believe that appellant did not leave the hospital on his own accord. Nor he was taken by his brother irrespective of the hospital authorities, for admission into another hospital, as the respondent's learned counsel would have us believe. The appellant has produced large number of receipts in support of having incurred sizeable expenditure on his treatment, after having been discharged from the WAPDA Hospital. We are of the view that he is entitled to receive this expenditure from WAPDA Authorities who were legally bound to provide him with every possible medical attendance after he had been seriously injured during the course of his duties as Assistant Lineman. Even otherwis, they are bound to compensate him for treatment on humanitarian grounds. We accordingly hold that he is entitled to reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment."
14 . For these reasons the appeal is accepted and the respondents are directed to:--
(a) make payment of appellant's salary for the period from 30-7-1983 to 27-2-1985;
(b) pass an order regarding payment of invalid pension in accordance with rules;
(c) make payment of the amount of gratuity to which he is entitled under the rules; and
(d) pay the amount of expenditure incurred by him on his treatment and travelling bills, after having been discharged from WAPDA Hospital, after calculation on the basis of receipts placed by him on the record in this case."
5. Above decision was challenged by the appellants before this Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,752 of 1993. The matter came up for hearing before the Court on 7-12-1994. After hearing arguments, the appellants' request for declaring date of retirement to be 30th July, 1983 instead of 27th February, 1985 as determined by Federal Service Tribunal was unequivocally rejected.
However, leave was granted to consider only two questions namely, (i) whether respondent Shamshad-ul-Haq was entitled to any pension and (ii) whether he was entitled to payment of Rs,75,000 the expenses incurred towards medical treatment etc.
6. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants vehemently argued that:--
(i) Respondent until retirement pursuant upon becoming invalid, had not complete requisite period of service qualifying for pensionary benefits.
(ii) Provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter III relating to WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977 are dependent upon the criteria laid down in Rule 6 of said Chapter. Therefore, conclusions drawn by the Federal Service Tribunal for granting pension to respondent Shamshad-ul-Haq is glaringly defective and contravenes basic spirit of relevant pension rules.
(iii) Payment claimed by the respondent towards expenses incurred on treatment and travelling was not entertainable and violates para.15 of the West Pakistan WAPDA Employees Medical Attendance Rules, 1979. The Service Tribunal has, therefore, acted in excess of jurisdiction by ignoring legal provisions and allowing medical claim of respondent.
(iv) Principle regarding applicability of relevant pension rules and medical allowance to employees who had been rendered invalid for service, have been misconstrued and misinterpreted.
7. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondent resistng the appeal contended that:--
(i) Chapter II of Pakistan WAPDA Employees Rules, 1977 (hereinafter described as 'Pension Rules') contains classification of pension in four categories Rule 3 of said Chapter explains "invalid pension", which has no nexus with Rule 6 of said Chapter and is factually controlled by Rule 5 of Chapter IV of ' Pension Rules' subject, however, to classification mentioned in the said provision.
(ii) The medical receipt for expenses incurred are duly authenticated and correspond to treatment for injury suffered by respondent, therefore, rightly allowed by the Tribunal.
8. We have carefully perused the entire record and considered arguments addressed before us.
Firstly, it may be seen that respondent Shamshad-ul-Haq undisputedly suffered serious injury while performing duty and was declared invalid for further service by the approved Medical Board; therefore, question arises whether under the circumstances he would be entitled to pensionary benefits or stand deprived in view of embargo concerning minimum period of qualifying service.
Scrutiny of Pakistan WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977, indicates that Rule 3 of Chapter III conceives retirement of an employee before attaining age of superannuation on account of bodily or mental infirmity which may cause permanent disability/incapacity for further service. However, closer study of pension rules disclose two situations when retirement of WAPDA Employees is caused on account of permanent disability/incapacity. One type could be deemed optional where disability is permissible and on deteriorating health condition the employee opts for retirement claiming "Invalid Pension". Such cases would be covered by Rule 3, Chapter III and depend upon minimum period of qualifying service as contemplated by Rule 6 of Chapter III of Pension Rules. Whereas other type of bodily or mental infirmity seems involuntary and disability, thus, caused is discernible into different classifications wherein the affectee even prior to period of minimum qualifying service is independently protected by Rule 5 in Chapter IV of "Pension Rules". Respondent clearly falls within the category of invalid pension regulated by Rule 5 in Chapter IV. It is pertinent to note that crush fracture sustained by respondent Shamshad-ul-Haq according to Medical Board has resulted in "Paraplegia", which is specially covered by item 5 clause (A) of Rule 5 in Chapter IV of "Pension Rules". Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that respondent in view of permanent disability whereupon he was retired from service was entitled to pensionary benefits. Decision of the Federal Service Tribunal awarding him pension, does not suffer from any legal defect or infirmity.
9. Secondly, it was responsibility of WAPDA to provide the respondent adequate medical treatment.
Undenyingly respondent was young person hardly of 25 years having natural anxiety to get reasonable treatment for averting possibility Of suffering permanent disability during entire life. The details of treatment as discussed the Tribunal correspond to impending necessity for taking steps to save respondent from unfortunate eventuality. In the given circumstances we are not impressed by the objection raised on behalf of appellants as regards payment of medical charges to respondent. Needless to say that on this aspect, stand taken by the appellants is neither equitable nor evokes any substantial question of law having public importance.
' For the above reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is consequently dismissed.
Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.