Find a Lawyer

Case No. 882 of 1984, decided on 27th April, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Scope‑‑Prerogative of Government‑‑‑ Beyond jurisdiction of Tribunal‑‑Government refusing to allow relaxation of upper age limit‑ Tribunal, held, cannot force Government to exercise its discretion.

Qamarul Hassan for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Muhammad Asghar has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Board of Revenue, Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that his appeal be accepted and, the refusal of relaxation of age by the Commissioner be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Akram, Daftri office of Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura was promoted as Junior Clerk. The appellant was appointed temporarily as Daftri on 16‑12‑1966, against this vacancy. At that time the appellant was 23 years old and hence within age. Subsequently Muhammad Akram the original incumbent was involved in a departmental enquiry, as a result of which he was removed from service, on 9‑3‑1971. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was accepted and the Commissioner, Lahore Division, ordered that he be reverted to the post of Daftri. The appellant went in appeal before the Commissioner which was rejected. He then filed a civil suit in which a decree was awarded to him by the Senior Civil Judge. The Deputy Commissioner filed an appeal against the said order of the civil Court before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeal was accepted, however, it was observed by the Tribunal to consider the case of Muhammad Asghar for employment in a suitable post sympathetically. On 10‑6‑1978, the post of Daftri again fell vacant in the Deputy Commissioner's office, Sheikhupura, the appellant was accordingly selected by the District Selection /Promotion Committee. The appellant was appointed as Daftri vide Deputy Commissioner's order, dated 26‑6‑1978 on purely temporary basis. His appointment had been made afresh. At his subsequent appointment on 26‑6‑1978, he was overage by 9 years and 81 months. He rendered 4 years, 3 months and 20 days service as Daftri. According to him the learned Deputy Commissioner made a reference to the Commissioner, Lahore Division vide his letter, dated 3‑9‑1978, for relaxation of upper age limit of the appellant. The Commissioner was competent to relax age by 5 years, therefore, he made a reference to the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, vide letter, dated 16‑10‑1978 for according necessary sanction in the matter. The Board of Revenue vide memo., dated 19‑5‑1980, informed that the Government in the Services, General Administration and Information Department, to whom the matter was referred has regretted its inability to entertain the request of Muhammad Asghar, Daftri, and the Deputy Commissioner was informed accordingly. The Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura again requested the Commissioner vide his memo dated 16‑6‑1980, that the case may be referred to Government for reconsideration. At this juncture the Commissioner, expressed his inability to accede to the request of the Deputy Commissioner, to make recommendations of request of the Deputy Commissioner to make recommendations of relexation of age limit of the appellant. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.

5. The short issue involved in this case is whether this Tribunal can interfere with the discretion of the Government which has refused to relax the age of the appellant or not. The case of the appellant before us is that when he entered into service he was within the age limited but due to the circumstances beyond his control, he became overage and the Government was not justified to refuse him this relaxation which was recommended by the Commissioner on compassionate ground.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has resisted this appeal on the ground that this Tribunal would be going beyond its jurisdiction to compel the Government to relax age limit, a prerogative which was only available to Government and to nobody else.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find she argument of the learned District Attorney quite forceful, as this Tribunal by no measure, can force the Government to exercise its discretion which lies with it and to nobody else.

8. In view of the above we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and proceed to dismiss appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.

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.