YUSAF HUSSAIN SIDDIQI Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑ Yousaf Hussain Siddiqi petitioner herein a U. D. C. in the Settlement Organization was transferred from Bannu to Mardan. He joined at the latter station on 18‑6‑1962 and worked till 16‑7‑1962. 1t appears that being unhappy over his transfers he unsuccessfully represented to the authorities for its cancellation or subsequent retransfer to Bannu. His position is that he proceeded on a fortnight leave in the first instance from 17‑7‑1962 and never resigned, whereas according to the Department, he actually resigned from service soon thereafter. It is in evidence that he made several representations for payment of his G. P. Fund, finalization of his pension case taking into account his service in the army, and ultimately after serving a notice under section 80 of the C. P. C., brought a civil suit seeking a declaration that he was still in service sod entitled to arrears of his pay. The suit was dismissed and his appeal before the District Judge also failed. He then brought a second suit and in the meantime, the N.‑W. F. P. Service Tribunal Ordinance, 1973 was promulgated resulting in the abatement of his suit. He preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which held that he could not be deemed to a civil servant after the acceptance of his resignation in July 1962, and as such the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. It is from this order of the Tribunal, dated 11-8-1975 that leave to appeal is sought by the petitioner.

2. In support of the petition, the only contention sought to be raised by the learned counsel is that the finding of the Tribunal is based on misreading and mis‑interpretation of evidence. The contention is completely devoid of force inasmuch as having been taken through the record; we are satisfied that all the relevant documents were properly considered and interpreted by the Tribunal. But even assuming this ware not so an appeal from the order of the Tribunal could his under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, to this Court only if a substantial question of law of public importance were found to have been involved, about which we are not at all satisfied. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.

3. Petition dismissed.