Find a Lawyer

Case No. 86/1131 of 1981, decided on 13th June, 1982. .

‑‑S. 12 (ii)‑Service qualifying for pension‑Intervening period of Officer re‑instated after retirement under Martial Law Regulation (C.M.L.A.) No. 114, held, counts toward pension.

Zamir A. Khan for Appellant.

Haroon ur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Muhammad Hussain Qureshi, Superintendent Jail (Retd.) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Chief Secretary to Government of the Punjab and Home Secretary to Government of the Punjab, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondents be directed to withdraw the impugned order of retirement and re‑Instate him in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, on 5‑1‑1980. The appellant has come in appeal against the order of his retirement on the only ground that he has not completed 25 years of service as he remained out of job since 13‑3‑1972 to 23‑1‑1978, when he stood retired under M. L. R. 114 and re‑instated again by the Review Committee.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel has placed his reliance mainly on the ground that according to Government of Pakistan memo. No. 3/3/78 RII, dated 14‑9‑1980, the intervening period was not to be counted towards pension, therefore, his order of retirement stating that he has completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension benefits was not maintainable.

5. We have given our anxious thought to the proposition so advanced before us and in view of our detailed judgment in Syed Kabir Hussain Shah and Bashir Ahmad Kamlana Appeals Nos. 166/1981 and 380/1970 we are afraid we cannot accept his claim. In the said judgment we have held that the intervening period of a civil servant who was once retired under M L.R. 114 and again re‑instated on the job would certainly count towards his service as well as pension benefits. In the said judgments we have observed that the letter of Central Government can in no manner override the basic service rules notified by the Governor of the Province. It is a settled law that the Governor as rule‑making body has unfettered powers to make rules with regard to the terms and conditions of a civil servant and unless and until such authority amends the rules itself, any instructions or letter(s) even from the Central Government will not make such rules ineffective.

6. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has completed 25 years service and the action taken against him is from competent authority, therefore, the impact of Article 13 of the P. C. O., 1981 will be fully applicable in his case.

7. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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