THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Another vs NOOR
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which set aside the retirement of the respondent from government service. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, specifically whether the requirement of completing 25 years of service for retirement in the public interest entails continuous service in one department or aggregate service under the government, and how periods of deputation and service counting towards pension are to be computed under the Pension Rules, 1963. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the findings of the Service Tribunal regarding the calculation of qualifying service and the interpretation of the statutory provision, while suspending the operation of the impugned order pending final disposal. The key principle noted is that statutory provisions regarding retirement after 25 years of service require close examination of qualifying service periods, including deputation and inter-departmental service under the relevant pension and civil service laws.
- Does Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 require continuous service in one department for the completion of 25 years of service?
- How is the period of service spent on deputation with the Central Government to be counted for retirement purposes under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Can a civil servant be retired in the public interest after completing 25 years of service when part of their tenure includes service under the Central Government?
- Section 12(ii), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
- Rule 2.1, Pension Rules 1963
ORDER
M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought to appeal against the` order of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in appeal No. 556/1340 of 1981.
2. Noor Muhammad Khan, respondent, Director of Education (on L. P. R.) filed appeal before the Service Tribunal against order dated 11-12-80 and final order dated 28-9-1981 retiring him from service, after completion of 25 years' service, with full benefits, by the Government .Of Punjab, in public interest.
3. Learned counsel's main contention is that section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act does not envisage continuous service in on department. These words have been imported into this provision of la by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, and are wholly unwarranted. A person who has put in more than 31 years' service, cannot be said not to have completed 25 years' service before his retirement could be ordered.
4. On going through the order of the learned Tribunal we find that the learned Members of the Tribunal made calculation of the period during which the respondent remained in the service of the Government of Punjab as Deputy Rehabilitation Officer (Temporary) Rehabilitation Department and when he was on deputation with the Central Government as Claims Officer, and thus they came to the conclusion that after deducting his total service with the Central Government, which does not count towards pension in the Punjab Government under rule 2.1 of the Pension Rules, 1963, which is 8 years 1 month and 17 days and the service put in by him with the Punjab Govern--ment, which comes to 23 years 5 months and 28 days only, and, therefore, he cannot be retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The point raised by the learned counsel needs consideration. We grant leave to examine the finding of the learned Service Tribunal. To be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if desired. Operation of the impugned order dated 9-10-1982 is suspended till final disposal of this petition.