MUHAMMAD RARNZAN Versus CHIEF ORDNANCE OFFICER, AMMUNITION DEPOT

ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER) .‑‑Facts of this case are that the appellant was selected as Boy on 1st April, 1943 at the Ordnance Department Lahore. He was confirmed as E. T. E. with effect from 4tb October, 1954. He was converted to the R. T. E. (regular temporary establishment) with effect from 1st July, 1969. He was compulsorily retired from service vide letter, dated 4th April, 1972 but the retirement order was given effect retrospectively with effect from 4th October, 1971.

2. It is admitted by the Chief Ordnance Officer, Ammunition Depot Khanewal (respondent No.1) that the appellant did have qualifying service 18 years, 4 months and 22 days. This admission notwithstanding, the appel lant is being denied his rightful pension on the ground that he had not rendered 25 years or more of qualifying service and as such he could only be allowed compensation gratuity under the provision of para. 3 of S.P.A.O. 21/66. The impugned order, dated 18th August, 1981, against which the appellant came' in appeal on 21st September, 1981 is reproduced

"Subject :‑Pension/Gratuity Claim‑TEC‑31344 Ex. Gate Keeper, Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Ammo. Depot, Khanewal.

Your application, dated 22nd July, 1981 addressed to G. H. Q. and copies to Public Relations Officer, Minister for Defence and Ministry of Defence/D‑22, refers.

As you had opted to be converted to R.T.E. from E,T.E. (c:) w.e.f. 1st July, 1969, you arc not entitled to pension under the existing orders. A case was taken up with authorities concerned for issue of the Govern ment sanction for grant of pension, instead of gratuity, as a special case, but it has not been accepted.

It is, therefore, regretted chat your request for grant of pension cannot be acceded to. Ammunition Depot; Khanewal are being advised to process your case for grant of gratuity with C. M. P. Lahore.

(Sd.)

Adjutant‑General

(H.M. Ahmad)."

3. We heard the appellant (plead his own case) as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. We shall not go into the various S.P.A.Os./ Government letters. It is enough for us to set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement which was passed on 4th April, 1972 but was given,' effect to retrospectively with effect from 4th October, 1971. Since no one except the legislature, has the authority to pass any order retrospectively, the retirement order, dated 4th July, 1972, is void ab initio and is a nullity in the eye of law. It would be deemed never to have been issued. The appellant shall, therefore, be treated as having continued in service all along and he would be entitled to all the benefits following from this order. The respon dents are free to process, afresh, the case of the appellant.

4. This appeal has been allowed with no order as to costs.

A. E. Appeal, accepted.