ABDUL GHAFFAR KHASKHELI vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMBER-SHAHDADKOT R

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDUL GHAFFAR KHASKHELI VS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMBER-SHAHDADKOT R.1.8(a), (b) & (c)---Pensionary benefits, withholding of---Permissibility---Grounds and scope---Loss caused to Government by negligence or fraud of pensioner during service---Undue excess payments made to pensioner, recovery of---Recovery and refund of such excess amounts permissible from pension---Legality---Withholding or withdrawal of pension permissible where pensioner is convicted of serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct, whether during or after service---Scope---Good conduct is an implied condition of every kind of pension and empowers the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or found to have been guilt of grave misconduct either during or after the completion of his service, provided that before nay order to this effect is issued, the procedure regarding imposition of penalty of removal from service shall be followed---In addition, thereto, under clause (b) to R. 1.8, it is provided that the Government reserves the right of recovery from the pension on account of losses found to have been caused to the Government by the negligence, or fraud of such Government pensioner during his service, by instituting judicial or departmental proceedings---Provided that such judicial or departmental proceedings shall not be instituted after more than one year from the date of retirement of the Government pensioner, clause (c) of R. 1.8 empowers the Government to call upon the Government servant to refund such excess payments, if afterwards found to have been received by the pensioner. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1489 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL GHAFFAR KHASKHELI VS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMBER-SHAHDADKOT Pensionary benefits---Right and entitlement---It is deplorable situation that government servants, after having served for a considerable long period during which they give their blood and sweat to the department, had to die in a miserable condition on account of non-payment of pension/pensionary benefits, etc.---Thus, everyone who is responsible in any manner in delaying the case of such retired officers/officials or widows or orphan children for the recovery of pension/gratuity and G.P. Fund has to be penalized---Supreme Court has issued strict directions that all the government departments, agencies and officers deployed to serve the general public within the limit by the Constitution as well as by the law shall not cause unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing the payment of pensionary/retirement benefits cases in future and violation of these directions shall amount to criminal negligence and dereliction of the duty assigned to them. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1489 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL GHAFFAR KHASKHELI VS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMBER-SHAHDADKOT S.20---Pensionary benefits---Entitlement---Legislature in its own wisdom incorporated the word "shall" in S. 20 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 that on retirement, a civil servant "shall be entitled" to receive pension and gratuity, impliedly casting a duty upon the authority superintending the service of the retired employee to forthwith sanction pensionary benefits---In case the department is of the view that the retired employee caused a loss through fraud, the department is competent under the law to initiate proceedings for such recovery but in no case the pensionary benefits be withheld. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1489 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL GHAFFAR KHASKHELI VS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMBER-SHAHDADKOT Ss.13, 20 & 26---Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, Rr.3, 4 & 8---Civil Service Rules (C.S.R), R.178---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Pensionary benefits, withholding of---Retired employee was directed to furnish requisite documents at the time of retirement for processing of his pensionary case---Legality---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invocation of---The challenge in the present Constitutional petition premised on the petitioner's entitlement to pensionary benefits after retirement from the post of peon at District Judiciary---Although he had completed over 37 years of service and was conveyed retirement upon attaining the age of superannuation, his pension and leave encashment were withheld by the respondents on the ground of incomplete verification of service record, domicile, PRC, and related documents---Thus the matter for determination before the High Court was as to "whether the withholding of pensionary benefits until such verification was justified under the applicable laws, rules, and service regulations"?---Held: Petitioner at the time of joining the job was permanent resident of District Larkana (now Kamber Shahdadkot) and he was physically fit---His appointment was not questioned during the period of service as admittedly petitioner served district judiciary for a period of more the thirty-seven years, during the said period no finding as to his ineligibility surfaced; he received salary regularly and any discrepancy was not pointed out in his service record---The provisions of R. 178 of Civil Service Rules (C.S.R) obligated the inspecting officers to verify the service record of employees maintained by subordinate office---Cursory glance at the photostat copy of service book of the petitioner evidenced that his service book was verified by the civil judge and district and sessions judge as well as district accounts officer---Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, under S. 20 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 he was entitled for the pension and gratuity as a matter of right---Petitioner was required by respondent No.1 to submit certain documents at the time of retirement for processing his pension case---It was not needed as under the provisions of Civil Service Rules (C.S.R) head of the department was the custodian of service record of an employee and in the case of the petitioner his record was verified time and again as transpired from his service book and at no point of time while in service any discrepancy was traced out---No justification for withholding of pension benefits was provided, therefore, such actions were unwarranted, illegal, unjustified and without any lawful authority, thus, amenable to judicial review of the High Court in its powers conferred under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Authorities were directed to process the case of petitioner for grant of pension benefits---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

ABDUL GHAFFAR KHASKHELI vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMBER-SHAHDADKOT R — 2025 PLC(CS) 1489 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC