Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 6 of 1979, decided on 7th June 1979.
---S. 13(i) read with Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1974), S. 4-- Retirement on completion of 25 years' service‑‑‑Neither a penalty nor carries any stigma‑Competent authority sole judge to decide whether continuance after completion of 25 years service in public interest --Civil Servant retired under S. 13(i)‑‑‑Not an aggrieved person to invoke jurisdiction of Service Tribunal unless colourable exercise or abuse of power shown.
P L D 1970 S C 98 rel.
Naimatullah for Appellant.
.‑The appellant was retired under section 13(1) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. The contention that inquiry ought to have been held before the order of retirement has no basis. No such inquiry is necessary as the retirement under section 13(1) is neither removal from set vice nor it amounts to a penalty. Even reasons are not necessary. It does not carry any stigma. Authority competent to act alone is the judge whether it is in public interest to allow the civil,, servant to retire him on completion of 25 years service or allow him to continue till the age of retirement fixed from time to time. In fact he cannot be treated to be an aggrieved person. So appeal is not maintainable unless it can be shown that there is colourable exercise or abuse of power as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case reported in P L D 1970 S C 98. There is nothing on record to support any such accusation.
Appeal is summarily dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer