0% found this document useful (0 votes)
236 views2 pages

Zulfiqar Comments)

This document contains the respondents' parawise comments on a writ petition filed by Zulfiqar Ali against the E.O.B.I. The respondents argue that Ali is not entitled to continuity of his past services for pension purposes because his previous department did not have a pension scheme. They also argue that the appellate authority correctly dismissed Ali's appeal as untimely. Finally, the respondents say the writ petition should be dismissed as the orders in question were legal and the petition is not maintainable.

Uploaded by

api-3745637
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
236 views2 pages

Zulfiqar Comments)

This document contains the respondents' parawise comments on a writ petition filed by Zulfiqar Ali against the E.O.B.I. The respondents argue that Ali is not entitled to continuity of his past services for pension purposes because his previous department did not have a pension scheme. They also argue that the appellate authority correctly dismissed Ali's appeal as untimely. Finally, the respondents say the writ petition should be dismissed as the orders in question were legal and the petition is not maintainable.

Uploaded by

api-3745637
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 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.

You might also like