Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 839/464 of 1985, decided on 29th March, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Jurisdiction of Tribunal‑‑Scope‑‑Relaxation of age limit Police Officer not sent for promotion course due to being over age (about 43 years)‑‑Request for relaxation rejected though covered by police letter of I.‑G. of Police and precedented‑‑Held : Relaxation of age limit being prerogative of I.‑G. of Police Tribunal cannot itself relax same Tribunal however, directing I.‑G. of Police to reconsider case at personal level in view of policy and precedents.
S. Latif Hussain Jafery for Appellant.
A.G. Hamayun, District Attorney for Respondent.
. ‑‑Asghar Ali, Head Constable No. 717 of District Police, Sahiwal posted at Police Station, Pakpattan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range. Multan and the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and impugned order, dated 28‑10‑1985, be set aside and a direction issued to respondent No. l to reconsider this case at his personal level in view of the facts and precedents quoted in the appeal of the appellant, in regard to the relaxation opt the upper age limit. (for a period of 1 year, 3 months and 8 days) to enable the appellant to undergo the Intermediate School Course.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant exceeded the' age limit of 43 years and was over‑looked after 23‑12‑1984, for being sent to promotion course at Sihala Police Training College. The appellant in view of this situation applied for relaxation of upper age limite to enable him to undergo the said course. Respondent No. 3 in his letter addressed to respondent No. 2 recommended the case of the appellant for relaxation of upper age limit, but the same has been rejected by the learned Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney, assisted by the representative the of the department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance
5. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been discriminated as the appellant is that the learned I.‑G. Police, pleased to grant relaxation of upper age limit of 5 months of H.C. Mubarik Ali, No. 803 of Sabiwal, for the course of 1983. Similarly he has cited example of H . C. Muhammad Chiragh No.68, who was also granted relaxation by the learned I.‑G. Police. He has referred to the case of the H.C. Manzur Ahmad No. 201, who was deputed to the course while he was junior to the appellant. By quoting these precedents, he has relied on Policy Letter No. 7217‑57/ E‑II, dated 7‑6‑1973, from the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, in which emphasis has been laid for relaxation of age to those who have been deputed to East Pakistan for reason of supreme sacrifice. In the said policy letter it has been stated that the period spent by such persons would be liable to be deducted from their age. It has been submitted that the appellant had remained a P O W for 2 years 7 months whereas he has claimed exemption for a lesser period viz. 1 year 3 months and 8 days only. With these submissions the appellant has forcefully argued that it seems this salient aspect of his case was not brought to the notice of the learned I.‑G.P. otherwise he would have certainly granted relaxation in his age limit as official of this status would not discriminate a humble subordinate of the appellant's status.
B. On the other hand learned District Attorney has resisted the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the relaxation of age limit is solely discretion of the learned Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab and this Tribunal would be acting beyond its jurisdiction, if it holds that the appellant's age limit should be relaxed by the said authority or itself pass an order to said extent.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and we have no hesitation to agree with the learned District Attorney that the power of relaxation of age limit is the prerogative of the learned Inspector‑General of Police and this Tribunal cannot itself relax the age limit. However, this Tribunal is competent to direct the learned Inspector‑General of Police Punjab, to reconsider the case in view of special circumstances of the case and the precedents so quoted by the appellant particularly in this case the learned Inspector General of Police Punjab's own policy letter, which allow the deduction of period spent in East Pakistan, the case of the appellant would seem a case of reasonable kind, therefore, this Tribunal directs the learned Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, to reconsider the case of the appellant at his personal level, keeping in view his letter and the precedents mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment, in which
he was good enough to relax the upper age limit of the aforesaid Head Constables, one of them was junior to the appellant.
8. In the light of the above observation, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be, no order as to costs.
A.E. Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer