Find a Lawyer

Case No. 17 of 1980, decided on 4th May, 1980.

‑‑‑ S. 12 (ii) read with West Pakistan Government Servants Pension Rules, 1963‑Retirement on completion of 25 years, service-- Condition precedent‑Service qualifying for pension‑Non- pensionable service period‑‑Cannot be taken into account Service rendered under Pakistan Railways prior to joining service under Provincial Government‑Non‑pensionable and not counted towards pension‑Retirement order passed by counting such service also towards requirement of 25 years' service, held, without lawful authority.

.‑‑‑The appellant, Monawar Ali Qureshi, was working as Assistant Director (Advertisement) in the office of the Director, Public Relations, when by an order dated 31st December, 1979, he was retired front service under clause (ii) of section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellant impugns the order on the ground drat he had not completed 25 years' service qualifying for pension when, the order was issued.

2. The parties were heard. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant joined the service of the Department on 14th November, 1957. Previous to that, the appellant was employed in the Pakistan Railways from 16th August 1949 to 14th November, 1957. This service was non‑pensionable, it was not service under the Punjab Govern ment and could not be counted as service towards pension. It was submitted that at one stage the appellant applied to the Director, Public Relations for counting the aforesaid Railway service towards pension, but, after ascertaining from the Pakistan Railways the exact nature of this service, the DPR endorsed to the appellant a letter received froze the Pakistan Railways (Annex. A' to grounds of appeal) stating that the service from 16th August 1943 to 14th November, 1957 was not pensionable. In view of this the appellant had not completed 25 years under the Punjab Government and the order retiring him was, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. On behalf of the respondent‑Department it was stated that the Accountant‑General had been addressed to verify the service of the appellant so that it could be known whether the appellant had actually completed 25 years service or not. The fact of the appellant's service in the Railway and the inability of the Railway to the appellant's service there as pensionable were not contested.

4. It appears that while order the appellant's retirement the respon dent‑Department had mistakenly counted the appellant's eight years' service in the Railway towards pension. To us there seems to be no other explanation of how the appellant's service was computed to be more than 25 years. The Punjab Government may not be agreeable to take on the. liability in respect of pension for service not rendered with it by the appellant. On the appellant's behalf reliance in this respect was placed on Rule 2.1 of West Pakistan Government Servants Pension Rules, 1963, which reads as under :‑

"2.1. Conditions of qualifications. ‑The services of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions :‑‑

(1) The service must be under Government.

(2) The service trust not be non‑pensionable.

(3) The service must be paid by Government from the Provincial Consolidated Fund.

In the appellant's case, only Condition No. 1 is fulfilled, while the other two are patently absent.

In view of the above, we must reach the inescapable conclusion that whets the impugned order was passed, the appellant had not completed 25 years' service qualifying for pension. No other point has been urged on behalf of the respondent‑Department. We find the order of 31st December 1979 to be without jurisdiction and contrary to law and, therefore, set it aside.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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