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.
Case No. 231 of 1982, decided on 27th June, 1982.
‑‑Ss. 4 & 5‑ Scope ‑Tribunal cannot go into moral and ethics of law but to interpret law as it is‑Retirement after completion of service of 25 years qualifying for pension‑Order passed by compe tent authority challenged on grounds that provisions for such retire ment were unjustified giving unfettered powers to competent authority to throw out Civil Servant at a stage when he cannot adjust elsewhere in society‑Interference on such grounds refused by Tribunal‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 12 (ii) and Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981), Art. 13.
Muhammad Ismail R. A. (Retd.) has filed this appeal under section 4' of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that his retirement under section 12(ii) after completion of 25 years service be set aside and he may t be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.
3. We have heard the appellant in person who has conceded before us that he was retired after completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension benefits, etc. and by the competent authority. He has also conce ded that he was unable to show any personal malice of the authority which so retired him. The only point which he has urged before us is that the P.C.O., 1981 as well as section 12 (ii) was an unjustified law which gave unfettered powers to the competent authority to throw out a person at the stage of life when it was not possible for him to adjust himself in the society otherwise than in service which he was so performing. He has addressed us lengthy arguments and has tried to persuade us that we should strike down the law so passed as immoral, illegal and arbitrary.
4. We are afraid we cannot accept the arguments so advanced, as we being the Tribunal set up under an enactment have to interpret the law as it is and cannot go into the moral and ethics of the same.
5. The result is we dismiss the appeal in limine as being without any merits.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer