ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J .‑‑‑This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, and 1424 of 1998, as in these appeals common questions of facts and law are involved.
2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 22‑5‑1998 passed by learned Judge in Chamber, Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby the Writ Petitions Nos.9997 of 1997, 10225 of 1997, 335 of 1998; 344 of 1998 and 1386 of 1998 were allowed and the orders dated 3‑12‑1997 and 17‑12‑1997 passed by Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Multan were set aside being against the provisions of rule 17‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974.
3. The facts relevant for decision of these appeals are that respondents were appointed against vacancies caused by the demise of their father or the mother in the light of the Government Notification NO.S.R.III/2/42/92, dated 18‑2‑1997 and Local Government letter No. SO‑II(LG)10‑7/96‑P, dated 17‑1‑1995. About Notification issued by the Government of Punjab Services and General Administration Department, is as follows:‑
"I am directed to refer to say that under the provision to R. 17‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, whenever a Government Servant dies while in service, is declared invalidated/incapacitated for further service, one of the unemployed children shall be provided a job against posts BS‑1 to 5 in the department in which the deceased Government servant was serving without observance of formalities prosecuted under rules/procedure provided such child is otherwise eligible for the post.
A question has arisen whether this benefit under the statutory provision of rules can be availed in case a ban on recruitment has been imposed by Government. The case was examined in consultation with the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department who have advised that ban on recruitment is not applicable against statutory provision of miles referred to above, nor the right of the child of a deceased Government servant under R. 17‑A of the Rules ibid would be abridged by such order.
(3) I am to request that this clarification may be brought to the notice of all authorities under your administer control for strict compliance".
4. The services of the respondents were dispensed with the Administrator Municipal Corporation, Multan, vide letter No.220/G, dated 17‑12‑1997 on the strength of Local Government and Rural Development Department letter NO.SO.IV(LG) 10‑7‑1993/93‑P, dated 14‑7‑1997, the relevant portion of which is as follows:
"Your views regarding implementation of this department's letter of even number dated 17‑1‑1996 will take immediate effect and not retrospective effect, are hereby confirmed".
5. Learned High Court, while allowing the petitions held that the matter contained in Rule 17‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 is a matter not contained in the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, as such, the same is applicable to the members of Local Council Service from the date said Rules had come into force viz. 8‑6‑1983. In view of above‑observations, it was held that the interpretation given by the appellant was illegal and contrary to law.
6. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order dated 21‑8‑1998, which is as follows:
"Leave to appeal is granted in these five Petitions (C.P.S.L.A. No. 1115‑L of 1998 to 1119‑L of 1998 to consider the following questions:
(1) Whether the provision of Rule 17‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules are applicable to the servants of the Municipal Corporation. Multan?
(2) Whether the letter/instructions applying the provisions of Rule 17‑A of the Rules to the Local Council employees has the effect of amending West Pakistan Municipal Committee Rules, 1969?
(3) Whether the learned Judge of the High Court was right in applying the provisions of Rule 17‑A of the Rules to the respondents who are governed by the West Pakistan Municipal Committee Service Rules, 1969?
2. Operation of the impugned order/judgment is suspended only in C.P.S.L.A. No.117‑L of 1998.
3. Applications seeking suspension of operation of the impugned judgment/orders in the remaining four Petitions (C.P.S.L.A Nos. 1115‑L, 1116‑L, 1118‑L and 1119‑L of 1998 are dismissed".
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Rules framed under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 are different than of Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, as such, Rule 17‑A could not be invoked. It is noted that the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 was repealed by Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 and the latter Act was repealed by Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 was repealed by Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001.
8. The Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 hold the field and its Rule 22 is as follows:‑
"22. General Rule .‑‑‑In all matters not expressly provided for in these rules and subject to the general direction of the Board, members of the Service shall be governed as nearly as possible by the Punjab Civil Service Rules. Punjab Civil Service Pension Rules, Punjab Civil Servants T.A. Rules, W.P. Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959 and such other general rules as may have beat or may hereafter be prescribed by Government from, tithe to time .
9. In view of above, it is evident that Municipal Administration Ordinance X of 1960 stands repealed and it being so the question of its applicability and of Rules of 1969 does not arise. Local Council Rules are applicable. Learned counsel for the appellant laid emphasis on Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1969 and contended that the respondents being employees of Municipal Corporation were governed by said Rules and being employee of Municipal Corporation Rule 17‑A of said Rules cannot be invoked. By virtue of Local Council Rules, 1983, Rule 17‑A supra is attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant has made no submissions relating lo the facts of these matters.
10. In consequence the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Q.M.H./A‑227/S Appeal dismissed.