1981 PLC(CS) 322

MUHAMMAD SABIR Versus

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1981 PLC(CS) 322

CourtPunjab Service Tribunal

Case No.Appeal No. 209/611 of 1980

Date1980-12-31

Judge(s)S. Abdul Jabbar, Chairman and S. Hafiz‑ur- Rehman, Member MUHAMMAD SABIR

ResultAppeal accepted

ORDER

1. S. ABDUL JABBAR (CHAIRMAN). ‑This appeal was filed by Muhammad Sabir under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which be has impleaded Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gujranwala and Commis sioner, Lahore, Division, Lahore as respondents. The appellant has prayed by virtue of this appeal that the impugned order' dated 31‑12‑1979 be set aside as without lawful authority.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant who has joined service on 2R‑12‑1947 as Patwari candidate remained suspended for two years 11 months and 24 days i.e. 5‑6‑1972 to IS‑5‑1975. The period in which he served as Patwari candidate comes to five years, 5 months and 22 days including the "boy service" of four years, 10 months and 28 days. According to the calcul ations the period of qualifying service for pension would be 24 years, one month and 11 days. The appellant has been retired compulsorily under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 vide order dated 30‑1‑1979 (Annexure `A'). The representation made by the appellant is still pending but the period of 90 days has elapsed. Hence the appeal filed before this Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that even without going into the merits of the case, section‑ 12(ii) is not attracted to‑ the case of the appellant as his retirement would be pre mature.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Government has submitted that the period of suspension is still under consideration so far and there fore, it would not be justifiable to calculate the same in favour of the appellant.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Government assisted by the Representative of the Department and find that the data available on the record before us clearly establish one fact without any dispute; that the appellant's total service would be 24 years one month and 11 days. With regard to the point raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the Government that the suspension period is under consideration therefore this may not be deducted from the period of service of the appellant, we are constrained to observe that this consideration has taken eight long years and still we do not see any light in spite of clear instructions of this. Tribunal from time to time.

6. In this case, rule 2.10 of Pension Rules, 1960' is as under: ‑

7. "2.10. Suspension.‑If a Government servant is suspended from service pending enquiry into his conduct, the period of suspension counts for pension if it is immediately followed by re‑installment unless the Government servant re‑instated with forefeiture of a art of his pay or allowances for the period of suspension."

8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order in the case of the appellant is not justified as it contravenes the basic principle of section 12(ii) whereby the retirement can only be enforced if the person retired has completed his 25 years qualifying service for pension.

9. Therefore the appeal is accepted and the orders are set aside. Before part ing with this judgment it would be in the interest of justice to observe that he should be treated on duty during the intervening period and entitled to full pay less already drawn pension.

10. Appeal accepted.