Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. 273/95 and 274/99 of 1977, decided on 31st December, 1979.

‑‑ Ss. 12 (11) & 21 (2)‑Retirement on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension‑Not appealable but subject to statutory right of representation under S. 21 (2)‑Representation lies to authority next higher‑Retirement of Patwari within competence of Collector‑Order passed by Assistant Commissioner as Collector Open to representation before Commissioner and not before Deputy Commissioner being himself a Collector‑West Pakistan Patwar Service Rules, 1964.

In these two appeals Nos 273 and 274 filed by Muhammad Iqbal son of Ahmad Din and Lal Khan son of Muhammad Hayat, and others, ex‑Patwaris, are aggrieved by the order of Collector, Gujrat Sub‑Division directing their retirements under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, on completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension and other benefits.

The present appellants aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of retirement, preferred representations dated 10th September, 1975 and 12th September, 1975, before the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, who rejected the same on 11th November, 1975; on the ground that no appeal was maintainable against the order passed under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants' Act, 1974. In an appeal to this Tribunal, it was observed that in view of the provisions contained in section 21 (2), even where no appeal was competent, a statutory right of representation was available. The case was accordingly remanded. on 21st September, 1976, to the Commissioner, by de novo decision. The Commissioner, Rawalpindi, however, instead of disposing of the representation himself again passed on the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, for disposal.

The case appears to have been heard, in the first instance, on 2nd June, 1977, when the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, accepted the represen tation and directed the re‑instatement of the appellants. It appears that after passing the order, he added that the approval of the Commissioner may also be obtained. The Commissioner again appears to have sent back the case to the Deputy Commissioner. Gujrat, for reconsideration. In the meantime the previous Deputy Commissioner was transferred and the case was reconsidered on 11th August, 1977, when the order of retirement of the present appellant was maintained. Hence the present appeal was filed on 14th September, 1977, before this Tribunal. The appellant, in the first instance, contended that since the Appellate Authority of the appellant was the Collector, therefore, it was the Commissioner alone who was competent to dispose of their representations as directed by this Tribunal on 21st July, 1976. He also produced before us a copy of the advice dated 24th September, 1978 given by the Board of Revenue to the Deputy Commissioner that the next higher authority to the Collector whether he is the Sub‑Divisional or the district was the Commissioner. In the alternative, the argument of the appellant was that in any case the appellant having been reinstated by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, on 2nd June, 1976, the successor Deputy Commis sioner could not reopen the case and reverse the order. The departmental representative, on the other hand, submitted that in this case it is not described by the respondent that the Collector was the Appellate Authority in the case of the appellant. Since the Assistant Commissioner has been empowered as Collector by amending the rules of the West Pakistan Patwar Service Rules, 1964 in 1972, therefore, it appears to be quite clear that the Deputy Commissioner who himself was the Collector, was not competent to hear any representation against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Collector), as he could not be considered as next B higher authority within the meaning of section 21 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants' Act, 1974. The interpretation already given by this Tribunal was also accepted by the Board of Revenue, which was the authority superior to the Commissioner in relation to the terms and conditions of Revenue Officials. We accordingly set aside the order of the Collector dated 11^th August, 1977 and again direct that the Commissioner, Rawal pindi Division, may dispose of the representations himself. Consequently, the appeals are remanded to the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division.

Appeals remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.