Find a Lawyer

Case No. 578 of 1983, decided on 21st March, 1.984.

‑‑ S. 12(ii)‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (1X of 1974), S. 4‑ Retirement‑Lying of appeal‑Held, no appeal lies against order of retirement unless there is any prejudice or malice on pact of retiring authority.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑Akbar Ali Sabir has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned order, dated 8tb November, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside and the appellant be declared to be continuous in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case and grounds of the appeal are that the appellant was serving as Range Forest Officer, Sargodha and vide notifica tion, dated 8th November, 1982 was retired from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 on completion of 25 years of service. Aggrieved by this the appellant made representation against the impugned order but according to him no reply has been received. The appellant also filed an application for condonation of the delay.

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

5. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the same points as mentioned in para. 3 above. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal on the ground that after completion of 25 years of service the option is on the favour of Government to retire any civil servant and similarly the civil servant is also privileged to seek retirement. As such no appeal lies to this Tribunal against the order of retirement under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, regardless to the fact that the appeal was also time‑barred for which the appellant has requested for condonation.

6. After careful consideration of the fact raised by the parties we have already decided previously in many cases of retirement that no appeal lies against such order of retirement. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any prejudice or malice on part of the respondents much-less the respondent No. 2 who issued notification for his retirement.

7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. M. 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.