Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Dawn e-paper
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker



Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather

FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Irfan Hussain Jawed Naqvi Mahir Ali Kamran Shafi The Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

February 26, 2008 Tuesday Safar 18, 1429





KARACHI: Tribunal rejects plea for pension



By A Reporter


KARACHI, Feb 25: The Sindh service tribunal on Monday dismissed the application of an ex-superintendent engineer of the irrigation department for the recovery of pension, which was barred by the provincial government after charges proved against him in respect of works pertaining to Dadu district.

In 1996 departmental proceedings were initiated against Shafi Mohammad Sand and eight other officials and as a result of that he was dismissed from service through an order dated June 12, 1996. However, upon a departmental appeal his dismissal order was withdrawn and he was reinstated via a notification on May 9, 1997 with the imposition a minor penalty. On attaining the age of superannuation on Oct 19, 1999, he retired from the service. When the appellant applied for pensionary benefits and during the process it emerged that through an order dated Nov 15, 2000 a penalty of Rs131,916 had been imposed on him.

The tribunal, comprising its chairman justice (Retd) Ghulam Nabi Soomro and two members, Nazir Mohammad Baloch and Syed Hassan Shah Bokhari, dismissed the application on the grounds that the appeal had failed on both counts -- merits and bar of limitation.

The judgment said, “The appeal before the departmental authority was hopelessly barred by time. Thus an appeal before the tribunal is held to be incompetent. We have also gone through the law cited in support of the appeal and found the same to be distinguishable and not applicable to the case of the appeal.”

Earlier, the defence counsel argued that the original order dated Nov 15, 2000 was illegal and against Article 13 of the constitution. He further submitted that his client’s dismissal order was withdrawn in relation to the same charge and was not liable to be penalised.

The public prosecutor argued that the appeal was incompetent in view of the fate that the departmental appeal was filed with a delay of about five years and the applicant was fully aware of the imposition of the minor penalty in 1997.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Media Group , 2008