Find a Lawyer

Case No. 631/1434 of 1981, decided on 15th June, 1982.

---Rr. 2 & 6‑War service benefits‑‑Candidates appointed against non‑war reserved vacancies‑‑Entitled to concessions of age, educa tion qualifications pay and pension only‑Benefit towards seniority Not admissible to such candidates‑Assistant Food Controller appointed in Food Department against non‑war reserved vacancy, held, rightly refused benefit of presumptive date of appointment on account of war service rendered by him.

Rustam Khan for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents

‑Muhammad Idrees has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region; Lahore, Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, Secretary to Government of the Punjab. Food Department, Lahore and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal it has been prayed that the impugned order dated 10‑11‑1981 of respondent No. 3, be declared as ultra vices, unlawful and ineffective and directive be issued to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to allow him War Service Benefits by treating Order No. LRE‑PEN (War Service Cell) 75/5199, dated 1‑8‑1975 of respondent No. 1 as fully valid and alive.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant served the Army as a Viceroy Commissioned Officer in the Second World War where he rendered active service from 24‑1‑1942 to 25‑4‑1947. After his release from the military service he joined civil employment on 11‑6‑1952 as Assistant Food Controller under the Punjab Government, Food Department. The appel lant was promoted as District Food Controller on 9‑5‑1974. Respondent No. 1 gave the appellant War Service Benefits in 1974, by way of fixing presumptive date of his appointment as Assistant Food Controller from 4‑4‑1948, as against the date of actual appointment on 11‑6‑1952. Respon dent No. 3 instead of confirming the abovesaid presumptive date of his promotion has refused to grant him‑the same on the ground that the appellant was not appointed against War Reserved Vacancy and has finally rejected his request vide his order dated 10‑11‑1981. The appellant has since retired from service on 6‑10‑1980. Hence this appeal.

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. The only issue before us is whether the appellant was appointed against a Non‑reserved Vacancy or he was inducted into service otherwise.

5. We have perused the record of this case and find that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Food Controller a post which was not reserved for War Reserved candidate. Under the War Service Rules, War Service candidates appointed against non‑reserved vacancies shall be entitled to concession of age, educational qualifications, pay and pensions only. . In this manner we do not find any merits in this appeal as it has been fully established on the record that no post of Assistant Food Controller was ever reserved for War Service candidates, thus the impugned order passed by the competent authority in his case is unexceptionable.

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

A. E. 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.