Find a Lawyer

Case No. 351/277 of 1983, decided on 26th March, 1984.

‑‑ S. 12‑Civil servant appointed afresh in another department- Retired after 19 years on ground of completing 25 years service qualifying for pension‑Plea that civil servant was treated as direct recruit and previous service could not be counted towards 25 years qualifying for pension accepted by Tribunal‑Civil servant reinstated with back benefits.

Noor Muhammad v. Education Department Appeal No. 1556/1340 of 1981 rel.

M. A. Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Numayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

Muhammad Hanif has filed this appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the respondent as mentioned above.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned order of his retirement dated 7th January, 1980 and 26th April, 1983 may be set aside being premature and he be reinstated in service as Inspector of Boilers w. e. f. 7th January, 1980 with full back benefits of pay and allowances.

3. Brief facts and grounds of the appeal are that the appellant applied for the post of Inspector Boiler to the Public Service Commission whose offer of appointment is given below :‑

"It may be made clear that the appointments of Messrs K. M. Jafri and Muhammad Hanif will be treated fresh appointments and under no circumstances they will be considered as on deputation from the Railway Department."

The appellant joined service of the Provincial Government as a direct recruit by fresh appointment w.e.f. 3rd January, 1961 and joined the Industries Department. Now the appellant has received order, dated 7th January, 1980 whereby the appellant has been retired from service on the ground that he has completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension or other retirement benefits under section 12(ii) of Ph. Civil Servants Act, 1974. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant has stated in his appeal that he had not yet completed 25 years service. He added that only 19 years service has been completed and as such the impugned order was void ab initio. The appellant has further contended for the purpose of counting 25 years service, the service rendered by the appellant with the Railway Department has also been counted, in spite of the fact that the order of the appointment clearly indicates that the appellant's service under the Railway Department would not be counted. The Finance Department has also given favourable view that the appellant's service is not to be counted towards 25 years qualifying service. It has been further submitted by the appellant that this Tribunal has already held in its judgments that if a civil servant is treated as direct recruit by the Provincial Government his previous service prior to the recruitment in another Department cannot be counted towards 25 years qualifying service. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has already held the same view in its judgments.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney for respondent and also perused the relevant record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the grounds as mentioned in para. 3 above. The learned District Attorney relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the responding Department and insisted that the retirement order was justified and issued lawfully by the competent authority.

6. After full consideration of the above facts it may be observed that this Tribunal held the same view in the case of Noor Muhammad v. Education Department (Appeal No. 1556/1340 of 1981) which is repro duced as follows :‑---

"the appellant is fully covered with the cases so decided by us as well as by the Federal Service Tribunal and Sind High Court and by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. We have no alternative but to follow our earlier decisions and the principle so upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and have no hesitation to hold that the service of the appellant so rendered by him with the Settlement Department under the Central Government in no manner can be considered under the Provincial Government within the meaning of rule 2‑1 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, and thus the impugned order so passed against him is liable to be set aside on this score alone."

There is no doubt that the present case is identical to the said case of Noor Muhammad v. Education. Department, which has been held on by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

7. Hence in view of the above facts the appeal is accepted and accordingly we set aside the impugned orders dated 7th January, 1980 and 26th April, 1983 and direct the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service w.e.f. 7th January, 1980 with all back benefits as the appellant has not yet completed 25 years of service in the Industries Department to qualify or justify his retirement.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. I. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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