MUHAMMAD AKRAM PATWARI Versus

In these six appeals, the appellants (Palwaris) dispute the competence of the A. D. C. (Cons.) to order their retirement under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 or to take action against them under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Precisely, the objection of the appellants is that the A. D. C. (Cons.) is not the "Collector concerned" as specified in the Board of Revenue Delegation of Power Rules vide Item No. 15 column 3, read with the West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Rules, 1963 not being the Collector, was not competen! authority in the case of the appellants to order their retirement under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellants submitted that they belonged to the general cadre of Patwaris which is maintained at the Sub‑Divisional level and thus the Assistant Commissioner was the "Collector concerned" in their cases as held by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 694/713 of 1974 (In re: Sher Muhammad v. Board of Revenue, decided on 28‑6‑1979. Some of the appellants have also raised the objection that they have not yet completed 25 years service qualifying for pension which is sine qua non under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. In fact a contention of universal application was raised on behalf of the appellants that the post of Revenue Patwari was made pensionable with effect from 1‑4‑1955 vide Notification No. 850‑55/1778‑ED, dated 15‑3‑1955 for the first time. It was submitted that the services prior to the aforesaid notification have not been held to qualify for pension by the Department. Moreover in case they were not to be classified as "Revenue Patwari" their posts were not pensionable. Thus, in terms of section 12(ii) the appellants, at the time the impugned orders were passed were yet to complete 25 years' service qualifying for pension. Moreover, section 12(ii) could only be attracted if they were treated as `Revenue Patwaris'. In Appeal No. 300/481 of 1979, the appellant was retired under section 12(ii) by the Settlement Officer, Sialkot, against whom identical objection was raised by the appellant that he was not the Collector concerned and thus was not the competent authority to pass the impugned order. In two appeals viz. Appeal No. 390/488 of 1979 by Munshi Muhammad Hanif and Appeal No. 239/646 of 1978 by Munshi Ghulam Hazur, the competence of the A. D. C. (Cons.) to order their compulsory retirement under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules was assailed. It was contended that even for the purposes of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, the A. D. C. (G.) was not the Collector concerned.

2. Rana Mukhtar Ahmed, Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue appearing for the Department tried to meet the objection by pointing out that some of the appellants initially belonged to the Cooperative Department and their services were transferred to the Consolidation Department by the order of the Provincial Government. Thus they could not be deemed to be on the general cadre of Patwaris, maintained at the Sub‑Divisional level in pursuance to the amendment in the West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwari Rules, 1964 as amended in 1972. He, thus contended that the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Slier Muhammad's case was inapplicable to the facts of these cases and supported the orders passed by the departmental authorities and submitted that the Commissioner had rightly overruled the objection. The department also brought to our notice the Government letters dated 8‑6‑1955 and 25‑6‑1955 vide which the entire service of Patwaris has been declared pensionable.

3. After hearing the parties and considering the facts of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that the appellants have not been shown to belong to any separate cadre. The documents and the record produced before us did not establish that the appellants were the members of any such service. The Department produced. before us letter Nb. 1012‑60/712‑CH(D), dated 28‑5‑1960 issued by the Board of Revenue to the Additional Commissioners (Consolidation) conveying the decision to absorb the consolidation staff of the Co‑operative Department against the posts in the Consolidation Depart ment in various Districts with effect from 1‑6‑1960. The case regarding absorption was also referred to the Law Department vide which query No. (ii) (reproduced below) was answered by the Law department on 14‑9‑1966 as under :‑

"(ii) Whether with the abolition of their posts in the Co‑operative Department such staff will, henceforth, be part and parse: of the Revenue Department and would be subject to the administrative control of the Revenue Department in establishment matters."

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

"With regard to Point No. (ii) on the abolition of their posts in the Co‑operative Department the staff in question become part and parcel of the Revenue Department in establishment matters."

Again on 29‑7‑1967 the Board of Revenue asked the Commissioners of the Lahore/Sargodha/ Multan and Peshawar Divisions for the following information

(i) The number of posts required to be created with the lists of officials who remained reverted and are re‑absorbed against these posts for the purpose of claiming their salaries.

(ii) The period for which these posts are required.

(iii) The total expenditure involved thereto and the source of its meeting."

It appears that after the receipt of the information, express sanction was accorded by the Board of Revenue to absorb the ex‑employees of Co‑opera tive Department in the Consolidation Department as per names specified in the lists issued by the Board of Revenue. But none of the appellant figured in the list. In fact, till very recently the Board of Revenue them selves have approached the S. & G. A. D. to clarify the matter with regard to Consolidation Patwaris. It was rather suggested by the Board of Revenue Punjab to amend the relevant provisions in the Delegation of Power Rules qua ex‑employees of the Co‑operative Department.

4. It appears that the arrangement in vague had been to borrow the Patwaris from the revenue cadre and when required for the consolida tion work. As such the appellants had to be treated as members of the "Revenue Cadre" of the Patwaris. With regard to the appeals against the orders passed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, same had also to be accepted, as neither the A. D. C. (Cons.) nor the Settlement Officer, after amendment dated 15‑7‑1972 in the West Pakistan (Northern Zone q Patwari Rules, 1964 was the "Collector concerned". The Department relied upon para. 2.12 of the Land Record Manual to content that when any District is under settlement operation the Settlement Officer is empowered to assume and discharge the functions of D. C/District Collector. However, we find that the provision did not relate to Kanungos and not to Patwaris. This Tribunal after a detailed examination of the relevant provisions of law, had laid down in Sher Muhammad's case, in Appeal No. 694/713 of 1974) that the Assistant Commissioner was the "Collector concerned" in the case of Patwaris. We reiterate our view in these cases also and hold accordingly.

Consequently all the six appeals are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside.

Appeals accepted.