ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
C.P.No.D-3678 of 2012
___________________________________________________________
Order with signature of Judge
29.01.2014
Petitioner is present alongwith his counsel Mr.Abbadul Hasnain, advocate
Mr.Abdul Jaleel
Zubedi, AAG
………
Petitioner’s case is that he was performing duty as
Office Superintendent in District Council Larkana and
he was retired from service in the month of December, 1995. After retirement,
his pension was started and since December, 2011, his pension was not paid.
However, learned AAG shown us Bank Advice issued to Allied Bank Limited of
Pakistan, Bunder Road Branch, Larkana
which shows that pension amount to petitioner was paid for the months of April,
May and July, 2012 which amount was credited in his bank account. We have also
seen comments filed by Chief Officer, District Council Larkana
who is respondent No.4 in which it is stated that District Council Larkana has about 300 regular employees and more than 300
pensioners whom pension is to be paid from income received through OZT share.
Claim of petitioner has not been denied but only reason for non-payment is
shortage of funds. It is further stated that demand for additional funds to
government has been made and as and when funds are received, all dues will be
cleared accordingly.
If there is
shortage of funds, petitioner cannot be held responsible who has served a long
period of time and after his retirement, he is entitled to get his pension in
accordance with law and rules. It is for government and concerned department to
arrange funds for payment of pension to their retired employees. In Human
Rights Case No.2492 of 2007, issue of pension was dilated upon by hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of said judgment, not
only State Bank of Pakistan has issued BPRD Circular Letter No.25 of 2010 for
their respective banks and their branches for disbursement of pension but they
have also made a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in pursuance of judgment of
hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid HR case. In this
matter, there is no dispute regarding entitlement of pension of petitioner
which is otherwise right of a retired person which cannot be deprived. Counsel
for petitioner has also argued that pension is sole source of income of
petitioner at the moment and despite approaching respondents, they have failed
to redress his grievance and they are delaying the matter for one or other
reason without any justification.
In view of
above, this petition is disposed of with the directions to respondents to
ensure payment of petitioner’s pension regularly. So far as
arrears are concerned, same will also be paid within a period of two months
without any delay. Copy of this order be
transmitted to all respondents for compliance.
J U D G E
J U D G E