IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1477 OF 2019 
 (On appeal against the judgment dated 01.02.2017 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in 
Writ Petition No. 1588-P/2013) 
 
Muhammad Siddique 
 
…Appellant 
 
VERSUS 
 
Senior Executive Vice President, PTCL and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant: 
In person 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
09.06.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this appeal by 
leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the appellant has called in question the 
judgment dated 01.02.2017 passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar, whereby writ petition filed by him was dismissed. 
2. 
 
Succinctly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
appellant was working as Senior Accounts Clerk (BPS-11) in the 
respondent 
department. 
Pursuant 
to 
introduction 
of 
Voluntary 
Separation Scheme (VSS), the appellant applied for the same. 
Considering his basic salary as Rs.7605/- per month, he was paid 
emoluments of Rs.198,8999/- vide letter dated 05.03.2008. At the time 
of final settlement, an amount of Rs.81,520/- was also recovered on 
account of outstanding house building advance. However, the appellant 
claimed that his last basic pay was Rs.8070/- and the emoluments 
should be calculated on the basis of this last pay. According to him, the 
outstanding amount of house building advance was Rs.77750/- instead 
of Rs.81520/-. Keeping in view the wrong calculation, he served 
grievance notice on 03.11.2008 upon the respondents but the same was 
Civil Appeal No. 1477/2019 
2
never responded. The appellant then filed petition before Labour Court, 
Peshawar, which stood dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2010. This 
decision was maintained by the Labour Appellate Tribunal vide 
judgment dated 06.06.2012 as also by the learned Peshawar High 
Court vide impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.  
3. 
 
The appellant, who appeared in person, submitted that the 
learned courts below have misread the evidence and decided the matter 
in a hasty manner without deeply appraising the record; that according 
to Last Pay Certificate (LPC), his basic salary was Rs.8070/- but the 
courts below never taken into consideration this document; that he is 
put to loss of Rs.465/- per month in pension, thus a valuable right has 
been accrued in his favour; that he had availed house building loan of 
Rs.77,520/- but the department has wrongly deducted Rs.81,520/- 
thereby putting him to financial loss of Rs.4000/-. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 
mainly contended that there are concurrent findings of three courts 
below against the appellant and that the claim of the appellant is false 
and he does not deserve any relief by this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard the appellant in person and learned counsel 
for the respondents at some length and have perused the record.  
6. 
 
It appears from the record that the department had 
introduced Voluntary Separation Scheme somewhere in November, 
2007. The appellant applied for the same and vide letter dated 
21.01.2008, the appellant was asked to complete the requisite 
documents by 25.01.2008. After completing all codal formalities, he was 
paid the emoluments vide letter dated 05.03.2008 considering his basic 
pay as Rs.7605/- per month. We have perused two documents 
available on record. One is Last Pay Certificate (LPC) dated 29.03.2018 
(Exh.PW2/5) and Initial Pay Slip dated 28.02.2008 (Exh.PW-2/4). Both 
these documents clearly show that at the relevant time, the basic pay of 
the appellant was Rs.8070/-. The appellant has also produced on 
record an email dated 09.03.2008 (Ex.PW-2/5), written by Manager HR, 
Peshawar to General Manager, PTCL, which was to the effect that 
according to service book, the basic pay of the appellant was Rs.8070/-. 
The learned courts below while refusing the claim of the appellant put 
much stress on the point that while appearing as PW-3, he had admitted 
during cross-examination that his basic salary was Rs.7605/- per 
month. However, in view of the aforesaid documents available on 
Civil Appeal No. 1477/2019 
3
record, which clearly show that at the relevant time the basic salary of 
the appellant was Rs.8070/-, the oral statement of appellant has no 
force and the same cannot be used against him to deprive him of his 
valuable rights. The appellant has admitted before us that at the time of 
cross-examination, he inadvertently mentioned his basic salary as 
Rs.7605/- and later on he tried to rectify his mistake by placing reliance 
on the aforesaid documents but these documents were never taken into 
consideration by the courts below. There is a well known dicta that ‘a 
man can tell a lie but a document cannot’. If a person has or has been 
bestowed some legal right and he omitted to claim such legal right 
through oral assertion but the best documentary evidence of which the 
case in its nature is susceptible is found in his favour then the 
documentary evidence in favour of a person should be given credence. 
When we confronted learned counsel for the respondents with this 
aspect of the matter, he candidly conceded that as only a difference of 
approximately Rs.450/- per month in the pension and an amount of 
Rs.47000/- in the commutation would occur, he would not oppose the 
claim of the appellant. So far as the difference of Rs.4000/- in the house 
building loan amount is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents 
also frankly conceded that since it is a meager amount, he will not 
oppose the claim of the appellant.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed 
and the impugned judgment is set aside. The respondent department is 
directed to recalculate the monthly pension and the amount of 
outstanding house building advance of the appellant in the light of this 
judgment and pay the difference to the appellant within a period of one 
month.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
9th of June, 2021 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
