Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

M. SHAHBAZ KHAN versus FULL BOARD, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,IAHORE


Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 Section 12 (11) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Article 13 Civil servant retires from employment by authorized authority after completing 25 years Full pension benefits allowed: No complete interference in decision Can be done

1984 P L C (C. S.) 1438

[Service Tribunal Punjab]

Present : S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member

M. SHAHBAZ KHAN

versus

FULL BOARD, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS

Case No. 54/916 of 1981, decided on 19th October, 1982.

Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)-

-- S. 12(11)-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 13 Civil servant retired from service by competent authority after completing 25 years-Full pension benefits allowed-Held : Decision being fully protected-Cannot be interfered with.

Appellant in person.

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

JUDGMENT

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN),

-M. Shahbaz Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Full Board, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Member (Rev.), B. O. R., Dilector Land Records Punjab, Lahore and District Collector, Sahiwal, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal be has prayed that the impugned order, dated 22nd January, 1980 passed by Respondent N, . 3 and order, dated 27th.May, 1980 by Respondent No. 2 and order, dated 13th January, 1981 by Respondent No. 1 may be set aside and the appellant be directed to be re-instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that vide order, dated 22nd January, 1980 the appellant was retired under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 by Mian Wahiduddin Rathore, Director, Land Records, Punjab, in the public interest, after he had completed 25 years service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits. The appellant filed a representation to Respondent No. 2 which was dismissed by the said respondent vide his order conveyed to the appellant on 8th July, 1980. The appellant moved to Full Board, Board of Revenue, through another representation which also met the same fate. 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 main stay of the appellant's case is that he had unblemished record of service and if there was any adverse entry the same was never communicated to him. It has been urged that a person who has good record of service should not have been retired in public interest.

5. Learned counsel has taken a legal objection against the retirement of the appellant as according to him the competent authority in his case would be Respondent No. 4 that is District Collector, Sahiwal and not the Director, Land Records Punjab, who has passed the impugned order.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so raised by the appellant and find that the orders so passed against him in an order under section 12(ii) of _the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which is now protected by Article 13 of the PCO, 1981, when it is found that the order is passed by the competent authority and the person so affected by that order has completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other benefits. In the present case the appellant has completed his 25 years service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits and can be retired by the competent authority, therefore, the objection of the appellant that he could not be retired as he had a good record of service, is without any substance.

7. With regard to the second point that the order so passed, was by the incompetent authority, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention of the Full Bench judgment of this Tribunal delivered on 6th July, 1981 in which this point was resolved in para 9 of the said judgment by holding that a Kanungo on the list of Director, Land Records would be retired by the said authority and not by the Collector of the District as urged by the appellant before us.

8. In view of the above we have no hesitation to hold that the' appellant has been retired by a competent authority and the action so taken against him under section 12(ii) is fully protected by Article 13 off the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.

9. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. The parties shall bear their own costs.

M. I. 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocates from Garh Maharaja lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.