SC rules for timely conclusion of retired employees’ cases

Judgment says proviso to section 21 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act in mandatory

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Punjab government must ensure fast-tracking of the cases of its retired employees to conclude those within the statutory timeframe of two years, so that the retired employees could enjoy their retired life and the government is saved from unnecessary expenses.

The ruling from a three-judge bench, led by Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, came on the question whether the proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 was directory or mandatory.

According to the proviso, departmental proceedings initiated against a retired employee shall be finalised not later than two years of his retirement. The 12-page judgment, authored a member of the bench, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, concluded that it was a mandatory provision.

The finalisation of the departmental proceedings not later than two years of the retirement of the employee under the proviso to Section 21 of the Act is a mandatory provision and any proceedings after the said statutory period shall stand abated and any orders passed after the efflux of the above time period are void and have no legal effect, the judgment said.

Justice Shah noted that in order to determine whether the proviso is directory or mandatory, the duty of the court is to try to unravel the real intention of the legislature. “The ultimate test is the intent of the legislature and not the language in which the intent is clothed,” he said.

“The object and purpose of enacting the provision provide a strong and clear indicator for ascertaining such intent of the legislature. The intention of the legislature must govern and this is to be ascertained not only from the phraseology of the provision but also by considering its nature, its object, and the consequences which would follow from construing it one way or the other,” he wrote.

“This exercise entails careful examination of the scheme of the Act in order to discover the real purpose and object of the Act. The focus of the Act is on the employees that are managing the affairs of the Government or the Corporation rather than those who have retired,” he added.

The judgment noted that any long drawn departmental proceedings against a retired employee would be an unnecessary drain on the resources of the government and would also distract the government from its prime objective of regulating its employees.

“The scheme of the Act seems to supports the public policy that an employee who has served the Government all his life must enjoy his retirement in peace and must be spared from undergoing long drawn departmental proceedings during his retired life,” the judgment said.

“It is only those employees against whom inquiry has been initiated prior to their retirement or within one year of their retirement that are relevant for the purposes of the Act,” it said, adding that “the Act further provides that any such departmental proceedings shall be finalised not later than two years” of the retirement of the employee.

Justice Shah said that the importance of the proviso could be gauged by supposing that there was no proviso to section 21. As a consequence, there would be no statutory timeline for the conclusion of the departmental proceedings against a retired employee, as is the case with an [in-service] employee under the Act. “Therefore, the insertion of the proviso has a specific purpose; to conclude the proceedings against a retired employee not later than two years of his retirement,” he said.