' The writ petitioner retired on 14-5-2000 as Senior Head Master Government High School Hajipur, District Rajanpur, on reaching the age of superannuation. His grievance in this writ petition is that his pension and gratuity is not being paid by the respondents in violation of their legal duty under section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, thus aforesaid nonpayment is failure on the part of the respondents to discharge their statutory function. The petitioner is an old man and is facing hardships due to nonpayment of his pension and gratuity.
2. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab Multan appearing on behalf of the respondents had drawn my attention to the comments submitted by respondent No,1 and stated that the petitioner's pension has not been sanctioned due to an inquiry pending against him regarding embezzlement of Rs,90,00,000 which amount was drawn through various cheques from the Government treasury and the said cheques were signed by the petitioner. He said that inquiry has almost been finalized, personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the Competent Authority, but unfortunately the said authority has been transferred and has left the charge without submitting inquiry report.
3. Learned A.A.-G., further submitted that pension is a matter relating to terms and conditions of service and a dispute with regard thereto falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution, therefore, writ petition is not competent.
4. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that contention of the learned A.A.-G. Is misconceived as in this case there is no dispute about the pension which is not yet sanctioned and the grievance of the petitioner is that he has retired from service on 4-5-2000 and under section 18(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 is entitled to receive such pension or gratuity as may be prescribed but the respondents are not discharging their statutory function and have so far not passed any order on the pension case of the petitioner.
5. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far no order has been passed on the pension case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have recourse to the Service Tribunal.
6. Pension is no longer a bounty but a right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period.
7. An inquiry is stated to be pending against the petitioner. So far no order has been passed by the respondents either sanctioning or withholding the pension and gratuity of the petitioner. Under rule 18(1) of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974, the petitioner is entitled to receive such pension or gratuity as may be prescribed. It is the statutory function/duty of the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the pension case of the petitioner in accordance with law and it is right of the petitioner to have the said matter decided in accordance with law. The said right of the petitioner can be enforced by means of writ of Mandamus. The respondents cannot be allowed to keep the pension case pending for an indefinite period on the pretext that C inquiry against the petitioner has not been finalized. In the said inquiry personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the Competent Authority as for back as on 18-3-2001 i,e, more than a year ago, as is mentioned in the comments submitted by respondent No,1.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is accepted in terms that respondent No,1, is directed to ensure that pension case of the petitioner is finalized within a period of three months from the date of this order. The petitioner shall appear before the Inquiry Officer if, or as and when, required by him so that the inquiry may be finalized. In case of delay caused by any lapse on the part of the petitioner in participating in the inquiry proceedings, respondent No,1, would be entitled to ask for extension of time for finalizing the pension case.