Justice at last: Ex-serviceman granted benefits after 14 years
Court says dismissal of ex- army officer is not free from mala fide motive
PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Saturday extended relief to a former military officer who was dismissed from service by former army chief Pervez Musharraf about 14 years ago.
At the same time the court observed that the dismissal of ex-army officers by military authorities is not free from any mala fide motive.
The two judge bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, dismissed the federal government’s review petition against its earlier order, wherein the court had maintained the Lahore High Court’s decision regarding the dismissal of the service of a military officer after four months of compulsory retirement.
Tahir Hussain was serving as a major in the Pakistan Army when he was compulsorily retired on April 13, 2000 on charges of indiscipline. But exactly four months later, he was dismissed from service. He was therefore deprived of pensionary benefits.
The former military officer contended that once the federal government had approved his release with pensionary benefits admissible under the rules, it should not have been substituted with dismissal from service.
Hussain later filed a petition against the move in the Lahore High Court (LHC). On May 26, 2003, the high court withdrew his dismissal order, saying that he had to be treated as retired from October 30, 2009 -- the date of superannuation.
The apex court also maintained the LHC order in this matter. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan of the Supreme Court raised the questions in his five- page judgment. He wanted to know how, once that the respondent who was released from service with pensionary benefits, could the order releasing him from service be held in abeyance.
The top court has rejected the defence ministry’s argument that the high court has no jurisdiction under Article 199 (3) of the Constitution to review issues related to armed forces officials.
It says that the argument of the defence ministry does not impress the court, when the dismissal order of a former military officer “is not free from taint of mala fide”. The bench also observed that it appears to be a unique case where the authority moved from certain to uncertain and from definite to vague. “Depriving someone of his hard-earned benefits cannot be left to the whim and caprice of the authority. At any rate, it has to be confirmed by what is called due process. A view thus formed cannot be maintained.”
Published in The Express Tribune, January 4th, 2015.
The Supreme Court on Saturday extended relief to a former military officer who was dismissed from service by former army chief Pervez Musharraf about 14 years ago.
At the same time the court observed that the dismissal of ex-army officers by military authorities is not free from any mala fide motive.
The two judge bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, dismissed the federal government’s review petition against its earlier order, wherein the court had maintained the Lahore High Court’s decision regarding the dismissal of the service of a military officer after four months of compulsory retirement.
Tahir Hussain was serving as a major in the Pakistan Army when he was compulsorily retired on April 13, 2000 on charges of indiscipline. But exactly four months later, he was dismissed from service. He was therefore deprived of pensionary benefits.
The former military officer contended that once the federal government had approved his release with pensionary benefits admissible under the rules, it should not have been substituted with dismissal from service.
Hussain later filed a petition against the move in the Lahore High Court (LHC). On May 26, 2003, the high court withdrew his dismissal order, saying that he had to be treated as retired from October 30, 2009 -- the date of superannuation.
The apex court also maintained the LHC order in this matter. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan of the Supreme Court raised the questions in his five- page judgment. He wanted to know how, once that the respondent who was released from service with pensionary benefits, could the order releasing him from service be held in abeyance.
The top court has rejected the defence ministry’s argument that the high court has no jurisdiction under Article 199 (3) of the Constitution to review issues related to armed forces officials.
It says that the argument of the defence ministry does not impress the court, when the dismissal order of a former military officer “is not free from taint of mala fide”. The bench also observed that it appears to be a unique case where the authority moved from certain to uncertain and from definite to vague. “Depriving someone of his hard-earned benefits cannot be left to the whim and caprice of the authority. At any rate, it has to be confirmed by what is called due process. A view thus formed cannot be maintained.”
Published in The Express Tribune, January 4th, 2015.