Zulfiqar Comments)
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Zulfiqar Comments) as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 411
- Pages: 2
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
W.P. No. 2599/1998 Zulfiqar Ali
Vs.
E.O.B.I. etc.
WRIT PETITION PARAWISE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS.
The respondents respectfully gives parawise comments as under: 1.
No comments.
2.
No comments.
3.
No comments.
4.
No comments.
5.
That the answer of the para No. 5 of the writ petition is that the compensation can be paid through the cross demand draft send some amount to the respondent. At this, as per regulation 7 of E.O.B.I. (Employees Pension & Gratuity) Regulations, 1987, since the parent department of M/s Zulfiqar Ali, the petitioners did not have a pension scheme, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to continuity of past services rendered in M/s Gemstone Corporation of Pakistan for the purpose of pension/gratuity in the institution on his absorption. Therefore the competent authority decided not to accept gratuity payment made by the parent department in respect of petitioners. Services of petitioner have been treated as fresh with effect from the date of his absorption for all practical purposes including payment of pension/gratuity on retirement etc.
6.
That the answer of para No. 6 of the writ petition is that the petitioner filed departmental appeal of after lapse of two years and the appellate authority dismissed the same.
7.
That para No. 7 of the writ petition is not correct and not admitted. The impugned orders dated 16.2.1999 and 17.2.98 are correct, legal and within jurisdiction.
8.
That the answer of para No. 8 of the writ petition is that the Social Security Institution has pension scheme, therefore, Asadullah Khan and Khalid Akram Ullah had been rightly given pensionery benefit etc.
9.
That the para No. 9 of the writ petition is correct to the extent that Mr. Ghulam Kibriya has been allowed the continuity of service because he was employee of the Punjab Social Security Institution and in that department has pensionary scheme. Rest of the para as stated is not correct and not admitted.
10.
That para No. 1 of the writ petition is not correct and not admitted.
11.
That para No. 11 of the writ petition is not correct and not admitted. That the prayer of the petitioner is not correct. The petition is not maintainable and as such is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that writ petition may very graciously be dismissed with costs. Respondents,
Dated: ________ Through: Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah, Advocate High Court, District Courts, Multan.
W.P. No. 2599/1998 Zulfiqar Ali
Vs.
E.O.B.I. etc.
WRIT PETITION PARAWISE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS.
The respondents respectfully gives parawise comments as under: 1.
No comments.
2.
No comments.
3.
No comments.
4.
No comments.
5.
That the answer of the para No. 5 of the writ petition is that the compensation can be paid through the cross demand draft send some amount to the respondent. At this, as per regulation 7 of E.O.B.I. (Employees Pension & Gratuity) Regulations, 1987, since the parent department of M/s Zulfiqar Ali, the petitioners did not have a pension scheme, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to continuity of past services rendered in M/s Gemstone Corporation of Pakistan for the purpose of pension/gratuity in the institution on his absorption. Therefore the competent authority decided not to accept gratuity payment made by the parent department in respect of petitioners. Services of petitioner have been treated as fresh with effect from the date of his absorption for all practical purposes including payment of pension/gratuity on retirement etc.
6.
That the answer of para No. 6 of the writ petition is that the petitioner filed departmental appeal of after lapse of two years and the appellate authority dismissed the same.
7.
That para No. 7 of the writ petition is not correct and not admitted. The impugned orders dated 16.2.1999 and 17.2.98 are correct, legal and within jurisdiction.
8.
That the answer of para No. 8 of the writ petition is that the Social Security Institution has pension scheme, therefore, Asadullah Khan and Khalid Akram Ullah had been rightly given pensionery benefit etc.
9.
That the para No. 9 of the writ petition is correct to the extent that Mr. Ghulam Kibriya has been allowed the continuity of service because he was employee of the Punjab Social Security Institution and in that department has pensionary scheme. Rest of the para as stated is not correct and not admitted.
10.
That para No. 1 of the writ petition is not correct and not admitted.
11.
That para No. 11 of the writ petition is not correct and not admitted. That the prayer of the petitioner is not correct. The petition is not maintainable and as such is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that writ petition may very graciously be dismissed with costs. Respondents,
Dated: ________ Through: Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah, Advocate High Court, District Courts, Multan.
