AYUB HASSAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others
The petitioner, formerly an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged his retirement from service after completion of 25 years of qualifying service, arguing that his prior service under the Central Government should not have been combined with his Provincial Government service of 15 years for computing the retirement threshold, relying on precedent. The core legal question is whether Central Government service can be included by the Provincial Government when computing the 25 years of qualifying service for premature retirement under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention raised regarding the computation of qualifying service requires detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that the amalgamation of Central and Provincial government service for calculating qualifying service for retirement requires judicial scrutiny when challenged under the governing service rules.
- Whether prior service under the Central Government can be counted towards qualifying service for retirement under the Provincial Government?
- Does the computation of twenty-five years of service for retirement permit the amalgamation of federal and provincial tenures?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge when by an order dated 10-12-79 he was retired from service on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits. He filed a review petition against this order but it was dismissed on 4-4-81. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but it too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that at the time when the order of retirement was made, he had put in only 15 years of service under the Provincial Government. Before joining service under the Provincial Government, he was an employee of the Central Government. While computing the period of qualifying service, the Provincial Government has taken into account his service under the Central Government as well which was not permissible under the rules. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgment of this Court reported as Secretary to Government of Punjab v. Noor Muhammad Khan (PLD 1984 SC 80).
3. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs,2,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.