Find a Lawyer

Case No. 403 of 1982, decided on 5th March, 1983.

‑‑‑ S. 13 (ii) read with Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 13‑Retirement on completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension‑Competent authority fully empowered to scrutinise case at any time on as many occasions as it considers expedient in interest of public service-Retirement order challenged on ground that (1) case was previously scrutinised and was cleared for continuance in service and (2) Review Committee was not properly constituted‑No malice attributed‑Appeal against retirement order, in circumstances, held, not competent and without merit‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S: 4.

Raja Iftikhar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Ch. Muhammad Anwar, Head Clerk, Regional Transport Authority, Multan (Retired) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary,' Services General Administration and Information Department (Transport Cell), Lahore and the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order contained in the S G A & I Department letter No. SCTRI/TR (SOG) 2311/75, dated 13‑7‑1982 be set aside and he be re‑instated into service with all back benefits. He has also prayed that the order dated 12‑1‑1980 passed by the Chairman, P.T.A, retiring the appellant from service under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 also be set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Head Clerk in the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi was retired in public interest by the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority, Lahore vide his Order No. 69/E, dated 12‑1‑1980 under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellant submitted a review petition which too was rejected. Then the appellant submitted another appeal to the Deputy Secretary S G A & I Department (Transport Cell) on 9‑12‑1981 which was rejected vide order dated 13‑7‑1982. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the stage of preliminary hearing. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the Review Committee was not properly constituted and thus the order of his retirement is illegal. He, has further submitted that even in the past, his case was scrutinized for retirement under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and he was cleared for continuance in service, hence the present order is illegal. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that this appeal is not competent in view of the bar contained in Article 13 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, particularly when no malice is attributed to the competent authority.

4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the appeal of the appellant. The appellant has not attributed the malice or ulterior motive to the competent authority, Admittedly he has completed more than 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits. We do not see any merits in the argu ments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The competent authority is fully empowered to scrutinize the case under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 at any time and on as many occasions as it considers expedient in the interest of public service. Since Article 13 P.C.O. has clearly laid down that the appeals against order under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 would not be competent on any ground whatsoever, so we hold that there are no merits in this appeal.

5. In view of the above analysis of the case, we dismiss this appeal in limine, with no order as to costs.

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.