Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1985, decided on 26th January, 1986.

(Against the judgment, dated 14‑4‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Intra‑Court Appeal No. 103 of 1983.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976, r.3(v)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether expression "Government Servant" used in rule 3(v) has a generic extended meaning as assigned to it by a learned Judge in Chambers so as to include both Central as well as Provincial Government or it must necessarily be given a restricted meaning as interpreted by Appeal Bench and confined to Provincial Government servants alone.

(b) Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976‑‑

‑‑‑R. 3(v) read with Punjab General Clauses Act (VI of 1956), S.19‑ Interpretation‑‑Construction of orders issued under enactments‑ Beneficial construction of provision‑‑Question arising for consideration whether expression 'Government servant' used in r.3(v) includes Government servants of Provinces as well as Federal Government‑‑ Relevant rules having been framed under S.23 of Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) which define word "Government" as "Government of the Punjab", expression "Government Servant" has to be given restrictive definition to mean Provincial Government servants.‑‑[Words and phrases].

Saifullah Khan v. Settlement Commissioner 1982 S C M R 853 and Haji Mian Muhammad v. Ghulam Mustafa P L D 1973 S C 394 ref.

‑‑‑ Relaxation of rules‑‑Principle of‑‑Where an exemption or relaxation is sought to be created in respect of certain. category, a restricted and not an extended meaning is given for understanding and applying statutory provision.

Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri (absent) for Appellants.

M. Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 in person.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986.

‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the expression "Government servant" used in clause (v), rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit,) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Relaxation Rules) has a generic extended meaning as assigned to it by a learned Judge in Chambers so as to include both the Central as well as Provincial Governments or it must necessarily be given a restricted meaning ail interpreted by the Appeal Bench and confined to the Provincial Government Servants alone.

The appellants are serving in the Office of Accountant‑General, Punjab and their employment basically is in connection with the affairs of the Federation, they being civil servants of the Federal Government. The Punjab Public Service Commission invited applications for recruitment as Civil Judges in accordance with the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules). The appellants applied for appearing at the examination. The upper age limit according to Recruitment Rules was 27 years extendable as follows: (as per Recruitment Rules and Relaxation Rule).

(i) In the case of candidate from Scheduled Castes or Under Developed Areas to thirty years.

(ii) In the case of a Government servant who has served in connection with the affairs of the Centre or the Province of West Pakistan for a period of not less than four years the upper age limit shall be thirty‑five years:‑

(iii) In the case of a Barrister or an Advocate of High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto, or a Pleader, the period during which he practised at the Bar subject to a minimum period of three years, shall, for the purpose of the upper age limit under this rule, be excluded from his age; and

(iv) In the case of a person whose services under Government have been terminated for want of a vacancy, the period of service already rendered by him shall, for the purpose of upper' age limit under this rule, be excluded from his age.

(v) In the case of a candidate already working as a Government servant, the period of his continuous service as such shall, for the purpose of upper age limit prescribed under any service rules of the post for which he is a candidate shall be excluded from his age."

The Public Service Commission felt doubts about their eligibility they being over 35 years of age and referred the question to the Provincial Government. By a letter, dated 26‑10‑198'2 the Government informed the Commission that the word "Government" used in the Relaxation Rules meant the 'Punjab Government' as was the term defined in Punjab Civil Servants Act. The appellants on this interpretation became over age and, therefore, ineligible. They invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for challenging this determination leading to their ineligibility to appear at: the examination. Their case was that the popular generic meaning should be given to the expression 'Government servant' so as to include the Government servants of the Provinces as well as of the Federal Government. Such an extended definition, according to them, was consistent with the beneficial construction of the provision.

The learned Judge in Chambers who first disposed of the matter held as follows:‑

"The term 'Government servant' according to the above definition would mean a person who is serving in Executive, Judicial Legislative and Administrative Business (including defence) of the State. This commonly understood acceptation of the term 'Government servant' dues not resolve the problem as from this meaning it does not flow that the said expression as used in the rule 3(v) of the Relaxation Rules was not intended to be limited to the servants of Provincial Government alone."

He after examination of the relevant rules upheld the claim of the appellants and declared them eligible to take up the examination.

On appeal the two learned Judges of the High Court on the basis of the provisions contained in section 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act and section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act held that the expression "Government servant" in the context sought to be interpreted meant only "Government servant" of the Punjab Government and not of the Federation thereby declaring the appellants ineligible.

Mr. Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended before us that if the definition of 'Government' as contained in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, and the principle contained in section 19 of the General Clauses Act are kept in view then the construction of the Appeal Bench of 'the High Court is correct. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, there are indications in the Relaxation Rules sought to be interpreted and the Recruitment Rules to suggest that the expression "Government servant" was not to follow the definition of Government but was to be given its generic and popular meaning so as to extend the benefits thereof to a category to which the appellants belong. According to him, such a beneficial construction is in accord with the purposes of the law and various provisions of the rules and is to be sustained in view of the decisions of this Court in Saifullah Khan v. Settlement Commissioner 1982 SCMR 853 and Haji Mian Muhammad v. Ghulam Mustafa P L D 1973 S C 394.

The rules sought to be interpreted, namely, Relaxation Rules were framed under section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 19741 and a new clause (v) was added in terms hereunder:‑

"(v) In the case of a candidate already working as a Government servant, the period of his continuous service as such shall, for the purpose of upper age limit prescribed under any service rules of the post for which he is a candidate shall be excluded from his age."

Section 2 which is a definition clause of the Punjab Civil Servants Act defines 'Government' as the "Government of the Punjab". It is all restrictive definition for the word "means" has been used for defining it. Section 19 of the General Clauses Act provides as follows:‑

"19. Construction of orders to issue under enactments. Where, by any West Pakistan Act, a power to issue any notification, order, scheme, rule, form, or bye‑law is conferred, then, expressions used‑in the notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye‑law shall unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context have the same respective meanings as in the Act conferring the power."

In view of these two statutory provisions the normal rule of interpretation would lead to the conclusion that the word '"Government" in the Relaxation Rules refers to Punjab Government.

There is another principle of interpretation of statutes which is attracted to the situation. The relaxation rules are expressed to be in derogation of or a departure from the normal rule for recruitment to the services. Not only the relaxation rules are expressed to be so their effect is also the same. For this reason, where an exemption or relaxation is sought to be created in respect of certain category a restricted and not an extended meaning is given for understanding and applying the statutory provision. On this view also the extended or the popular meaning cannot be introduced defeating thereby the legislative intent and the purpose.

The only other submission of the learned counsel for the appellants which requires further examination is that the rules applicable to the recruitment read as whole justify such an extended meaning. Hoe has referred to the other clauses, for example, in clause (iii) of rule 3 of the Relaxation Rules and rule 6, clause (ii), proviso (2) reproduced above wherein provision has been made for certain categories of Government servants actually serving or who have already served in connection with the affairs of the Federation. We have examined these rules and find that there is no conflict or incongruity to justify a departure from the ordinary rule of interpretation for where departure was intended it was expressed in clear language which was itself. restrictive and not general and extensive.

The learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that the more appropriate word to be used in the context would have been 'Civil Servant' instead of 'Government servant' if the intention was to confine the benefits to the employees of the Provincial Government. For good reason, this argument has been rejected by the Appeal Bench and we agree with the reasoning because if the expression 'Civil Servant' had been used then a large section of even the Provincial Government servants for whom this rule has been framed would have stood excluded.

We find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. We want to make it clear while dismissing this appeal that if it is only a question of relaxation of age, the Government may if it is short of officers or of qualified candidates and is facing difficulty in recruitment it may in case of suitable and qualified candidates from amongst the appellants, if any, relax this requirement of age. The learned counsel after consulting the appellants has expressed their readiness if in the case of those qualifying, such relaxation in the matter of their age in forthcoming to forego the batch seniority and instead claim seniority from the date relaxation in age is ordered or appointment is made. However, this is a matter for the Provincial Government to deal with.

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.