Dr. Khalid Javed Vs Govt. of the Punjab etc.

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

WP No. 68046 of 2025

Dr. Khalid Javed vs The Government of Punjab through Secretary Health and Population Department & another S.No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or Order/ order/ counsel where necessary Proceeding proceeding 09.10.2026 M/s. Naveed Ahmad Khawaja and Muhammad Umar Aftab Advocates for petitioner.

Barrister Hassan Khalid Ranjha, Addl: A.G. with Rana Athar Raza Khan, Fayyaz Sandhu, Adnan Safdar Khokhar, Ahmad Kamal Khan, Syed Qaiser Gillani, Faisal Anwar Minhas, Ijaz Ahmad, M. Kashif Habib Sheikh, Basit Waheed Watto, Muhammad Naeem Mazhar and Ms. Asifa Ahmad, Advocates.

Mr. Khurram Abbas Wahga, Law Officer, Health Department.

Mr. Qamar Hanif Ramay, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan, Ch. Imtiaz ullah Warraich, Ch. Muhammad Naseer, Shehryar Farhan Beg, Shujaat Umar Pirzada, Syed Imran Ehsan, Abdullah Haroon, Muhammad Saeed Bin Noman, Dr. Muhammad Azeem Raja, Syed Ali Allow-u-Din, Muhammad Afzal, Mateen ul Haq Ch., M. Harris Jatt and Ms. Mussarat Rehman Advocates.

Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J. The petitioner, Dr. Khalid Javed (“petitioner”) served as Chief Executive Officer in District Health Authority, Narowal and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2023 vide notification dated 23.09.2022. During service, one inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and two others on 21.02.2022 and another inquiry against petitioner and 10 others on 16.04.2023 but said inquiries have not been finalized till date and the petitioner challenged continuation of further proceedings of inquiry

WP No. 68046 of 2025 Dated 09.10.2026.

against him by filing instant constitutional petition on the ground that in view of Section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (“PEEDA Act”) and judgment reported as Province of Punjab through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad and others vs. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 328), continuation of said two inquiries after two years of his retirement cannot sustain. It was further claimed that on 29.12.2023, respondent No.1 refused to grant pension and corresponding benefits to the petitioner on account of said pending inquiries, which have not yet been finalized. The petitioner filed application challenging the said order and when same was not decided filed Writ Petition No. 45296 of 2023, whereupon vide order dated 02.11.2023 a direction was issued to the respondent No. 1 to finalize the matter. The respondent No.1, in compliance of the aforesaid order passed impugned order dated 02.07.2025 declining the representation of the petitioner, consequently depriving him from pensionary benefits, which is a right earned by him by serving respondent- department for such a long time. The said order is impugned herein.

2.The learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the Government of Punjab has vehemently opposed the petition and defended the action of the respondents by referring to the reply submitted by the respondents in response to the instant petition and states that the competent authority had initiated two separate inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, which are still pending, therefore, the pensionary benefits could not be released to the petitioner. When confronted that two years’ timeframe fixed by law for finalization of inquiry proceedings has expired, therefore, inquiry proceedings

WP No. 68046 of 2025 Dated 09.10.2026.

had abated, learned Law Officer has relied upon amendment introduced in Section 21 of the PEEDA Act with effect from 25.02.2026, whereby in case inquiry proceedings are not completed within two years, the competent authority has been authorized, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend time period for a specific duration. Section 21 of the PEEDA Act and amendment introduced in said Section through Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2026 (‘Amendment Act’) are reproduced below:

“Section 21: Proceedings under this Act.— Subject to this Act, all proceedings initiated against the employees having retired or in service, shall be governed by the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder:

Provided that in case of retired employees, the proceedings so initiated against him shall be finalized not later than two years of his retirement.

(2)The competent authority may by an order in writing, impose one or more penalties specified in clause (c) of section 4, if the charge or charges are proved against the retired employee.”

“Amendment in Section 21 introduced on

1.Short title and commencement.-(1) This Act may be cited as the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability (Amendment) Act 2026.

(2)It shall come into force at once.

2.Amendment in Section 21 of Act XII of 2006.- In the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (XII of 2006), in section 21, in sub-section (1), for the proviso, the following shall be substituted:

“Provided that in case of a retired employee, the proceedings so initiated against him shall

WP No. 68046 of 2025 Dated 09.10.2026.

be finalized within two years of his retirement and in case, such proceedings are not completed within two years, the competent authority may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time period from a specific duration.”

3.It is not denied that the petitioner retired on 31.01.2023 and period of two years after his retirement expired on 31.01.2025 and on the said date in terms of Section 21 of the PEEDA Act the timeframe prescribed by law for completing inquiry also expired and inquiry proceedings after the said date could not be finalized in terms of proviso to Section 21 of the said Act. Therefore on 31.01.2025 the inquiry initiated against the petitioner had abated and a vested right had been created in favour of the petitioner relieving him of rigors of further proceedings in the matter. Reliance is placed on principles laid down in the case of Javed Iqbal (supra), the operative portion of which is reproduced below: ‘13. The legislative intent and the purposive interpretation of the Act read with the supportive material discussed above, it is clear that the finalization 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.

14.In the instant cases, the departmental proceedings against the respondent have been finalized after a period of two years of his retirement, the departmental proceedings, therefore, have no legal consequence and the subsequent departmental orders are void and have no legal effect. For this reason we take no exception to the impugned judgments and are of the view that they do not warrant any interference. Leave is, therefore, declined and these petitions are dismissed. For future, the Government must ensure that cases of retired employees are fast

WP No. 68046 of 2025 Dated 09.10.2026.

tracked so that they are concluded within the aforesaid statutory timeframe allowing the retired employees to enjoy their retired life and the Government to save unnecessary expense and time in pursing matters against retired employees.’

4.The amendment in Section 21 was introduced subsequent to passing of two years of petitioner’s retirement, whereby vested right had already been created in favour of the petitioner and proceedings against the petitioner stood abated by operation of law. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the afore referred Amendment Act clearly shows that amendment in PEEDA Act had been made enforceable at once which means from the date of enactment of the Amendment Act i.e. 25.02.2026 and not with retrospective effect and would not be applicable to the matters already abated or concluded as the said matters had become past and closed transactions. Had the legislature intended to make the amendment operative with retrospect effect, it would have mentioned so in the amending Act which was a mandatory condition for giving retrospective effect to a substantial law that created liabilities or took away, curtailed or prejudiced vested rights but the same has not been done and the amending Act has not been given retrospective operation, hence its operation could only be treated as prospective from the day of enactment of the Amendment Act and no other interpretation was possible. In support of the aforementioned conclusion reliance has been placed upon the principles laid down in judgments reported Secretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Communication and Works Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others versus Inayat Ullah and another (2026 SCMR 558), Muhammad Safdar versus The State (2026 SCMR 1472), WAPDA

WP No. 68046 of 2025 Dated 09.10.2026.

through Chairman, Punjab and others versus Iftikhar Ali and others (2026 SCMR 1106), Muslim Commercial Bank Limited versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal through Chairman, Lahore and others (2025 SCMR 303) and Judgment dated 2nd June, 2026 passed in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal No. 4818 to 4842/2024 titled Chairman Water and Power Development Authority WAPDA Lahore versus Ijaz Ali Gul and others). The relevant portion of latter judgment is reproduced below for clarity:

‘Every statute which takes hold of or prejudices vested rights assimilated under existing laws, or contrives a new obligation or enforces a new duty, or characterizes a new disability in respect of transactions already passed and closed is presumed to have no retrospective effect. In other words, a statute is not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment, especially where the statute is to affect vested rights, passed and closed transaction, or facts or events that have already occurred and, instead of promoting or advancing the cause of justice, is creating consequential impediments or causing any disadvantage to any of the concerned parties.’

5.Furthermore, had the amendment been made during subsistence of two years period after retirement of petitioner, the competent authority in its discretion for reasons to be recorded in writing could further extend time period for a specific duration but no reason, whatsoever, for proceeding further with inquiry is available or mentioned in the present case and specific time duration for which extension has been given is also not provided. The competent authority has still not passed a specific order for extension of time for concluding the inquiry proceedings to the extent of the petitioner. It is also debatable that whether said extension

WP No. 68046 of 2025 Dated 09.10.2026.

of time for completion of inquiry proceedings had to be made before expiry of two years or immediately on expiry of two years after retirement or could subsequently be validly permitted by competent authority under the law but as said question does not arise in the instant case, this Court has refrained itself from commenting upon the said aspect of the matter.

6.In view of what has been discussed above, a vested right had already been created in favour of the petitioner on completion of two years of his retirement, after which the inquiry proceedings had abated and thereafter cannot continue against him in view of judgment of Javed Iqbal (supra) and said right cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the afore referred amendment in Section 21 of the PEEDA Act in view of the principles laid down in judgment of Ijaz Ali Gull (Supra). Consequently, instant petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 is set aside with the result that it is declared that the inquiry proceedings to the extent of petitioner stand abated and as a consequence thereof the withheld amount of pension shall be released to him forthwith.

(MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR)

JUDGE

Naveed *

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.