BAHAWAL KHAN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT. LAHORE

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order of his pension. He has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, and Commissioner, Sargodha Division, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appellant is entitled for payment of full salary including increments of three years from 1st December, 1975 to 1st December, 1977 and release of three increments after 31st December, 1980 to be counted towards pension.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Sub‑Accountant in the Office of the District Accounts Officer, Faisalabad at the time of his compulsory retirement effected under section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, vide order dated 10th January, 1980 passed by the Commissioner Sargodha Division, Sargodha. The appel lant bled an appeal against his retirement but the same was disposed of on promulgation of the Provisional Constitution Order. As the appeal of the appellant has, been dismissed, therefore he stood retired from 9th September, 1981 and was entitled to draw 'pension accordingly. The impugned order by which he was imposed minor penalty only directed that his three increments would be forfeited without accumulative effect. However, six increments have been withheld on the plea that during the period of suspension he was entitled to no increment, therefore, his increments would be stopped from the date of suspension to the date of retirement. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned‑counsel as well as the learned District Attorney assisted try the representative of Department and have carefully perused the record of this case with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has made grievance that as the suspension order was not validated by the competent authority after expiry of the prescribed period of three months, therefore, the period of suspension could not be excluded for the purpose of increments and if at all any increment was stopped that would only relate to the period during which the appel lant remained suspended. It has been further argued that the stoppage of increments which was counted from 1978 to 1980 was in fact based on wrong counting as the stoppage was without accumulative effect and the period for more than three years was liable to be counted towards his pension. It was further argued that the appellant rendered service for 8 months in the year 1975 and 4 months in the year. 1977 and, therefore, the total of 12 months qualifying service is to be counted towards service.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant remained suspended for the first three years, therefore, he would not be entitled to any increment in the ordinary course of nature and the Government was fully justified to withhold his full incre ments which related to the period of his suspension. The learned District Attorney has further argued that as the appellant was suspended by the Commissioner who was a competent authority in his case, no sanction of the Government was necessary for validating the suspension period.

5‑A. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the suspension of a civil servant would be void ab initio if it is beyond three months unless the same was duly approved by the competent authority after expiry of prescribed period. In this manner the period of suspension would become illegal and the civil servant would be considered to be on duty after his re‑instatement by the competent authority. In this manner we are in full accord with the argu ments advanced by the learned counsel that only three increments of the appellant had to be forfeited and that would relate to the period during which he remained under suspension. As once he would be re‑instated in service he would be considered to be on duty for the simple reason that his period of suspension was not got approved by the higher authority.

6. We have no hesitation to repel the argument of learned District Attorney that the respondent was justified to withhold 6 increments as the order clearly states that he will lose three increments without accumulative effect.

7. In view of above we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent that three increments of the appellant which have been forfeited after the re‑instatement into service be counted towards pension. It is further directed that the pension payment order be revised accordingly.

Howsoever there will be no order as to costs.

M, Y. M. Appeal accepted.