Retirement benefits: ‘No proof Ziauddin served as army chief’

Ziauddin is seeking the privileges of a retired chief of army staff.

LAHORE:

Responding to the petition of General (r) Ziauddin, seeking the privileges of a retired chief of army staff (COAS), the government told the Lahore High Court on Monday that he had no proof of having served in that capacity.

The court asked lawyers on both sides for further arguments at the next hearing to be scheduled within three weeks.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan of the Lahore High Court was hearing Ziauddin’s petition for retirement benefits and release of property confiscated during Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf’s regime, as well as a declaration that his removal had been illegal.

The petitioner’s counsel said he had been appointed as Chief of Army Staff on October 12, 1999, by then president Muhammad Rafique Tarar on the recommendations of then prime minister Nawaz Sharif. He said that soon afterwards, the prime minister and the petitioner were surrounded by armed troops of the 111 Brigade. He said Lt General (r) Mehmud Ahmed and Major General Ali Jan Aurakzai had threatened them at gunpoint to step down but Sharif had refused, and they were taken into custody. He said Ziauddin had been held in solitary confinement for two years.

The counsel said the petitioner had suffered greatly during confinement, including purported dismissal from service, forcible seizure of his properties and deprivation of right to receive pension. He said he had appealed against his removal and the confiscation of property to the Chief of Army Staff but had not heard from him.

The petitioner’s counsel said that on August 2, 2001 the petitioner was released and was handed a hand-written note that he had been dismissed. The counsel argued that the order was unsigned, without a stated reason, and without the name and designation of the authority passing the order. He submitted that the petitioner had been holding a constitutional post under Article 243 of the Constitution, from which he could not be removed except in accordance with the law. He said his vested right to pension had also been taken away without notice and without an opportunity to defend himself. He added hat the proceedings of the petitioner’s case had been tainted by bias and vindictiveness, and were unconstitutional.

The counsel asked the court to declare the petitioner’s removal void. He also requested that directions be issued to restore all confiscated properties and pay a four-star general’s retirement dues to the petitioner.

The judge had earlier restrained the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) from selling his seized properties.

Lady Willingdon case

The Lahore High Court on Monday extended a stay order till February 19 against the demolition of a portion of Lady Willingdon Hospital, as the government defended acquisition of hospital land for a road project.

A law officer appearing on behalf of the government said the government was not going to demolish the whole hospital. He said only two and half kanals was being acquired to build a flyover. The court directed the law officer to present the record of land acquisition at the next hearing.

Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf leader Yasmin Rashid and the Young Doctors Association have filed the petitions. Their counsel have said the government was demolishing a hospital instead of establishing more health facilities. They also said the hospital was a city monument, so that no part of it be demolished.

The counsel argued that the demolition could be a violation of many articles of the Constitution, several provisions of the Walled City Act 2012, Antiquities Act 1975, and the Punjab Special Premises Preservations 1985. They said the government had not carried out an environmental impact assessment before starting construction at Azadi Chowk. They also said the mandatory ‘no objection certificate’ had not been obtained from the Environment Protection Department. Justice Abdul Sattar Asghar adjourned the hearing till Tuesday and asked the petitioner’s counsel to file a written rejoinder to the government’s reply.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 18^th, 2014.