' NUR AHMAD SHAH, MEMBER-II.---This is an appeal under section 4 Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973.
The facts are; The appellant joined the Sindh Sugar Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Corporation, as an Accounts Officer on 19-1-1978 in the Dadu Sugar Mills. He rose to the position of Deputy Chief Accountant. In November 1998, his take home salary amounted to Rs,22,307 per month. In February, 1999, he opted for premature retirement in response to such scheme floated by the Management of the Corporation. He was allowed retirement along with others on 27-2-1999 with an undertaking by him that he would not dispute the payment if made to him according to his entitlement. He was paid Rs,587,515 against, according to him, his entitlement of Rs,897,049. He challenged it in a departmental appeal which remained undecided within the statutory period.
Hence this appeal. He prays that he be paid the dues of Rs,336, 984, with bank rate interest w,e,f, 9- 3-1999. The respondents have rejected the appellant's claim as illegal and state that he retired voluntarily and has received all the financial benefits except difference of revision of pay scale for the period July, 1995 to June, 1996 as per policy of the Corporation.
2. Heard Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan for the appellant and A.A.-G. Chaudhary Muhammad Iqbal for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The counsel for the appellant, drawing our attention to the case laws, states that pension is a right of a civil servant and is based on the pay and allowances last drawn by, him and that a civil servant cannot be estopped from agitating the matter on the ground that he had undertaken not to challenge it. He relies on 1991 SCMR 1041; 2001 PLC (C.S.) 810; 2001 PLC (C.S.) 661; 2002 PLC (C.S.)
1418; PLD 1977 Lah. 71; PLD 1969 Dacca-957. He disputes the statement of account submitted on behalf of the respondents on 22-1-2003 in support of their contention that the appellant has been paid pension dues as per his entitlement.
4. In para 10 of the memo. Of appeal, the appellant indicates the amount of Rs,897,049 as his legal dues. In the subsequent para., however, the details of the dues payable by the Corporation, according to him total upto Rs,924,499 which is Rs,27,450 in excess than the amount claimed in the preceding para. Be it what it may, the respondents admit non-payment of the amount claimed by the appellant. This includes Rs,14586 as Provident Fund for the period of his tenure (October, 1994 to February, 1995) in the Thatta Sugar Mill; Rs,7000 as TA/DA; Rs,161, 653 as 35% difference of salaries of June, 1994 to June, 1995; and Rs,65,875 as 5 bonuses of 1997-98 and 1998-99. The respondents explain that the difference of salaries and the bonuses were not paid because these were not allowed by the Board of Directors. About the bonuses, they further state that due to the losses sustained by the mills run by the Corporation, none of its officers or workers was given any bonus for the period 1997-98 and 1998-99.
5. Bonus is a seasonal gratuity to employees beyond their normal pay and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right moreso in the case of a losing concern. Since the sugar mills in which the appellant was employed sustained losses the question of the award of bonus would not arise. The payment under heads like salary, F rovident Found TA/DA cannot, however, be refused and the employee is required to be paid these dues as per his entitlement. Even an undertaking given by the appellant, as is contended by the respondents, that he would not agitate for the pensionary benefits once received by him shall not act as estoppel if the amount so paid to him falls short of his legal entitlement. "Part acceptance", as held in PLD 1977 Lah. 71, "does not imply surrender of remaining entitlement". Provident Fund is an officer's personal contribution and it is repaid on the eve of his retirement if he has not drawn it during service. It is not forfeited even in the event of 'a dismissal from service. TA/DA is a facility extended in case of any journey undertaken by a civil servant in the performance of his duties.
6. In fact, even in the affidavit given by the applicant and relied on by the respondents, it is stipulated that any dues to the appellant "if accepted by the Management of the Dadu Sugar Mills may be reimbursed to me as and when they consider it suitable." The nature of the dues claimed by the appellant as discussed above, is such that it provides no escape clauses. Lack of resources or a decision by the Board of Directors not to pay any of these dues would not be a valid ground for their refusal. In releasing salary, Provident Fund and TA/DA if due, the Corporation would be only conceding to his right rather than doing any favour to the appellant.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed to the extent of allowing the appellant the arrears of salary, Provident Fund, TA/DA payable to him as per his entitlement. No order as to costs. accordingly.