SECRETARY; COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE Versus RIAZ AHMAD , Ejaz Ahmad Khan
The respondent, an Executive Engineer, was dismissed from service after abandoning his post. Following a successful appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal, he was reinstated, with the intervening period treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Subsequently, the respondent sought to count this period of extraordinary leave towards his increments and pension, a request the Tribunal granted. The department appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether extraordinary leave could be counted towards increments and pension under the applicable civil service rules. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 4.9 of the Civil Service Rules, extraordinary leave generally does not count for increments, except where the leave was beyond the civil servant's control. The Court allowed the period after the respondent reported for duty to count towards increments but denied the period of his voluntary absence. Regarding pension, the Court held that Rule 2.7 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules strictly excludes extraordinary leave from qualifying service, granting no discretion to authorities to include it. The Tribunal’s order regarding pension was therefore set aside.
- Does extraordinary leave count towards increments under Rule 4.9 of the Civil Service Rules (Vol. I, Part I)?
- Can a civil servant claim increments for a period of absence that was within their own control?
- Does Rule 2.7 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules allow for the inclusion of extraordinary leave in qualifying service for pension purposes?
- Does the competent authority have discretion to count extraordinary leave towards pension under the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules?
- Rule 4.9, Civil Service Rules (Vol. I, Part I)
- Rule 2.7, West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑ The respondent was an Executive Engineer in the Highway Division of the appellant‑department and was at the relevant time posted at Attock. He was suspended from service on charges of misappropriation and embezzlement. The Anti‑Corruption Committee held a meeting on 5‑10‑1980 and decided to take departmental action against him. On 11‑11‑1980 the respondent sent a telegram to his department stating that due to unfavourable family circumstances he was unable to continue in service and that his resignation should be accepted with effect from 12‑I1‑1980 `after deposit of one month's pay'. Without waiting for the acceptance of his resignation he relinquished the charge of his post and later left the country. The department did not accept the resignation but proceeded to hold an enquiry against him. Accordingly, a show‑cause notice was issued to him through the press. When he did not respond to the notice, an order dismissing him from service was passed. He returned to his office on 21‑12‑1982. When he learnt that he had been dismissed from service, he filed a review application. It was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal and directed his reinstatement in service. It further directed that the period intervening between his dismissal from service and reinstatement should be treated as leave extraordinary without pay. It also observed that it would be open to the authorities concerned to continue with the departmental proceedings, if they so desired. Apparently, the department dropped the proceedings. After reinstatement, the respondent asked the department to count the period of extraordinary leave towards increments as well as pension. His request was turned down, whereupon he filed another appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the reliefs sought by him. From the judgment of the learned Tribunal his department has through special leave come in appeal to this Court.
2. The relevant provision relating to the conditions on which service counts for increments in a time‑scale is contained in Rule 4.9, Civil Service Rules (Vol. I, Part I). It reads as follows:
"(a) All duty in a post on a time‑scale counts for increments in that time scale.
(b) Service in another post, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, service on deputation and leave other than extraordinary leave counts for increments in the time‑scale applicable to the post on which the Government servant holds a Hen as well as in the time‑scale applicable to the post or posts, if any, on which he would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended:
Provided that, the competent authority may in any case in which it is satisfied that the leave was taken on account of illness or for any other cause beyond the Government servant's control, direct that extraordinary leave shall be counted for increment under this clause.
(c) ??????? ..................................................... ?????? ....................
(d) ...........................................................................
(e) ? ????????????????????..
A perusal of clause (b) will show that ordinarily extraordinary leave does not count for increment. However in two cases the competent authority can‑direct that the extraordinary leave should count for increment. These cases are:
(i) the leave was taken on account of illness; and
(ii) the cause for the leave was beyond the control of the civil servant.
The period which the respondent wanted to count towards increment fell between 12‑11‑1980 and the date of reinstatement. It can be divided into two parts: first part will cover the period between 12‑11‑1980 and 21‑12‑1982; and the second part will relate to the period between 22‑12‑1982 and the date of reinstatement. So far as the first part is concerned, the respondent had himself stayed away from his post and it cannot therefore be said that his absence was for reasons beyond his control. Obviously, in terms of clause (b) he cannot claim that this part should also count towards increments. As regards the second part, admittedly, the respondent had reported himself for duty on 22‑12‑1982 and it was the department which was not prepared to take him back. Thus, his absence in the period falling between 22‑12‑1982 till reinstatement was beyond his control. We see no reason why he should not be allowed to count this part of his extraordinary leave towards increment.
3. The relevant provision relating to service which counts towards pension is to be found in Rule 2.7 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules. It runs as follows:
"Leave.‑‑‑All leave (other than 'extraordinary' leave) counts as qualifying service for purpose of pension."
It is to be noticed that by operation of this rule extraordinary leave does not count as service for purpose of pension. Unlike the proviso to Rule 4.9, ibid, there is no discretion with the competent authority to give a direction for the counting of the whole or a part of the extraordinary leave towards pension. The learned Tribunal was therefore not right in giving a direction to the contrary in violation of Rule 2.7. We accordingly set aside this part of the order of learned Tribunal.
4. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly accepted in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
A.A./S‑737/S, ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal partly accepted.