1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---These appeals with leave of the Court are directed against a consolidated judgment dated 22-2-2001 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby two civil revisions filed by the appellant were dismissed and the earlier determinations of the two Courts below i.e, the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court were maintained.
2. ' The facts in brief in Civil Appeal No,2782 of 2001 are that the respondent Muhammad Hameed Bhatti, who was working in the Punjab University as Assistant Registrar and was having 33 years service at his credit, was offered the job of Controller in the appellant's University in BPS-18. An appointment letter in this behalf was issued on 28-8-1976 with a probation period of one year.
3. Consequently, after securing premature retirement from the Punjab University, he joined as Controller on 9-9-1976. He rendered commendable service for more than 10 yearsand retired with effect from 4-11-1986 on reaching the age of superannuation. Subsequent to his retirement, because of his meritorious record of service, he was re-employed for certain period. He was granted L.P.R. But since the appellant functionaries were reluctant to grant him retirement benefits as well as move-over to the next grade, he was constrained to file a declaratory suit on 5-11-1990 claiming pensionary as well as other ancillary benefits inclusive of move-over to BPS-19.
4. ' In Civil Appeal No,2783 of 2001 respondent Muhammad Afzal Khan, who was working as Deputy Controller in the Punjab University having 32 years service at his credit, was similarly offered the job of Controller in BPS-19. He too was appointed on similar terms through a letter of even date dated 28-8-1976. He also joined the appellant-University after seeking premature retirement from the Punjab University on 9-9-1976 with a probation period of one year. He was confirmed to the post of Controller of Examinations through letter dated 26-11-1977 with effect from the date of his appointment i.e, 9-9-1976. The Chancellor Committee approved his move-over to BPS-20 in its meeting held on 22-11-1986. However, for certain reasons best known to the appellant-University, this approval was not implemented. He retired upon reaching the age of superannuation on 16-8- 1987. Thereafter he too was re-employed on contract basis for some period on account of his meritorious services. Since the retirement benefits as well as move-over as approved was not granted to him, he too filed a declaratory suit on 13-11-1990.
5. ' Issues were framed separately in both these suits. The parties led their respective evidence. The learned Civil Judge Ist Class. Bahawalpur, decreed both the above suits through his separate judgments dated 29-2-1992 holding them permanent employees of the appellant-University and entitled to pension and other benefits. An exception was taken by the appellant to the above judgments before the learned First Appellate Court which through its consolidated judgment dated 3-4-1993 dismissed both of them. Two civil revisions were filed by the appellant-University before the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur Bench, which were also dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 22-2-2001, impugned herein.
6. Leave to appeal was granted in both these petitions on 29-11-2001 to consider the following three points:- -
(i) Whether re-employment constitutes a bar for the grant of pension, move-over and ancillary benefits in view of the relevant previsions as contained in the Islamia University BahawalpurAct, 1975 and the Islamia University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979.
(ii) Whether the provisions as contained in the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and the Islamia University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979 can be superseded by Instruction No,26 published in ESTA Code at page 309 which provides that a person who has been re-employed can take full benefits of service and pension.
(iii) Whether the Lahore High Court has ignored the relevant provisions of Islamia University Bahawalpur Officers (Appointment) Statutes, 1977 and resultantly the exact nature of the service of respondents could not be determined having a substantial bearing to set the controversy at naught.
7. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated his arguments in support of his aforesaid contentions.
8. ' Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and has stated that both the respondents who have crossed the age of 77 years, have been embroiled in an uncalled for litigation by the appellant-University for the last more than 20 years. He has also claimed exemplary compensation from the appellant for the agonies suffered by the respondents for a period nearly about decades.
9. ' Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, learned Advocate-General Punjab, has assisted the Court at the asking of the Bench and rendered valuable assistance.
10. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents placed on record with their assistance. The crucial point in these appeals is to determine the nature of employment of the contesting respondents. It is to be noticed that both the respondents who after rendering more than 30 years service with the Punjab University secured their premature retirement and joined the appellant-University at its very inception. In order to attract them into service of the newly-created appellant-University, the respondents were offered lucrative benefits. The plea of the appellant that the respondents were re-employed is devoid of any force. According to Chapter 8 of the Islamia University, Bahawalpur Officers (Appointment) Statutes, 1977, there are two types of ,methods for appointment of a post. It is either through initial recruitment or through promotion. Both of the respondents were admittedly not appointed to their respective post on the basis of promotion as they were not earlier employees of the appellant-University. They were taken initially to their posts on 28-8-1976 and their terms of appointment were as under in both these cases-- "(1) His appointment is terminable on one month's notice during the period of probation and on three months' notice after confirmation or pay in lieu thereof from either side.
(2) He will be governed by the orders of the Vice-Chancellor till such time the Statutes, rules and regulations are framed by the Islamia University Bahawalpur.
(3) He and his family members shall be entitled to receive the medical facilities.
(4) He will be entitled to draw full salary from the Islamia University, Bahawalpur plus pension etc. From the University of the Punjab if and when he retires from University.
(5) He will be on probation for one year."
11. ' After the successful completion of their probationary period they were confirmed in their posts by the Vice-Chancellor with effect from their initial appointment which in both the cases was 28-8- 1976. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show us any rule or the document from which it could be reflected that the respondents were re-employed on contract basis after their premature retirement secured by them from the Punjab University at appellant's asking.
12. Subsequently, after attaining the superannuation they were appointed on contract basis in view of their meritorious services. Their contract service on their re-employment was admittedly after their superannuation. By no stretch of imagination their earlier period prior to their retirement could be termed as contract employment. They were lured by the appellant-University to join new assignments from the Punjab University and, as already stated, were kept for a period of one year on probation. In this background, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents were employees on contract basis and, as such, were not entitled to the pensionary benefits, has got no legs to stand. Since the respondents were not re-employed and their appointment was made through initial method in the year 1976, therefore there is no justification in denying them the pensionary benefits of their services rendered by them after their initial recruitment. They are entitled under the statutes to the pension as they satisfy the conditions prescribed in Chapter II of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to point out any law or rule which bars the claim of the respondents to the pensionary benefit. The plea of the learned counsel that the restriction on the claim of pension has only been relaxed by the University by adding following provisions in case ofMilitary Pensioners, as such this concession would not be available to the respondents, is without any force. The newly-added provision reads as under:-- (6)(b) "Pension/gratuity as admissible under these Statutes will also be allowed to Military pensioners re-employed by the University B who have rendered service in the University in addition to the pension received by them from the Defence Department. The pension of Military pensioners for the service in the University will not be affected by their Military pension."
14. The respondents were never re-employed and in the circumstances the above arguments, as already stated, cannot be pressed into service respecting them. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any provision either in the Statutes or anywhere in the rulespersons concerned are already enjoying pensionary benefits from whether the pensionary benefits in such- like situation where the the previous departments can be denied. It is to be pointed out that both the respondents, on the allurement of the appellant, secured premature retirement by which certainly their pensionary benefits from the Punjab University were reduced. They rendered service after their initial appointment with the appellant-University for more than 10 years in both the cases and according to the Pension Statutes of the University they are certainly entitled for the same. It is a basic principle that whatever is not prohibited is deemed to be permitted. At this juncture it cannot be stated that they are not entitled to any pensionary benefits. Since it has been held that the respondents were recruited in the service of the appellant-University by adopting initial recruitment method, as such no other point can be gone into, nor it has been argued.
15. It is to be appreciated that the respondents' entitlement to the move-over has not been seriously contested by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. On the contrary when questioned, the learned counsel admitted their respective right to the move-over. The documents appended with these appeals also demonstrate that Muhammad Afzal Khan respondent was denied move- over in spite of the fact that the Chancellor's Committee approved the same in its meeting held on 22-11-1986 for the reasons best known to the appellant. Similarly, Muhammad Hameed Bhatti who admittedly satisfied the preconditions required by the rules for the grant of move-over, was denied this right without any justification. They retired from the service of the University in the year 1986 and filed civil suits as far back as in the year 1990 after having failed to get redressed their grievances from the appellant. For the last more than 13 years they have been undergoing continuous agony as reflected from the documents placed on record. They rendered meritorious services by joining the appellant-University at its very start after securing their premature retirement from the Punjab University so as to get the appellant-University established on sound basis. The appellant-University has deprived the respondents of their hard-earned benefits for such a long period which cannot be termed as fair on its part.
16. The upshot of the above discussion is that both the appeals are dismissed with costs. The appellant-University is directed to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each as costs to the respondents forthwith for the agonies and expense suffered by them for all this period apart from the fact that they were deprived from the utilization of their well-earned amount at the time of their need particularly so when the buying power of the currency has certainly gone down now.