Syed ASADULHAQ vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER and others
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of service appeals by the Service Tribunal, concerning the premature retirement of civil servants. The petitioners, serving as an Assistant and a Superintendent in the office of the District Education Officer, Bahawalpur, were retired from service on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension by the order of the Deputy Director (Administration). The core legal question is whether the Deputy Director (Administration) was the competent authority to order their retirement or if the power vested solely in the District Education Officer under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court held that since the Deputy Director was the appointing authority under Rule 4(a) of the West Pakistan Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules, he was fully competent under Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act to direct their retirement in the public interest. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed as devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that the authority competent to make appointments is legally empowered to direct the retirement of a civil servant upon completing the qualifying period of service.
- Whether the Deputy Director is competent to order the retirement of civil servants who fall under their appointing jurisdiction?
- Does the power to retire a civil servant on completion of 25 years of service vest in the appointing authority?
- Whether the District Education Officer is the exclusive authority competent to retire assistants and superintendents serving in their office?
- Section 12, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Syed Asad-ul-Haq, petitioner in C.P.S.L.A. No,887 of 1981, was serving as Assistant in the office of the District Education Officer, Bahawalpur. Ch. Sarwar Ali, petitioner in C.P.S.LA. No,920/81, was serving as Superintendent in the same office. By an order dated 13-1-1980 they were retired from service by the Deputy Director (Administration) in the Divisional Directorate of Education on completion of 25 years service qualifying them to receive pension of other reitrement benefits. They made representations against their reitrement but without any success.
They then filed appeals before the Service Tribunal. Their appeals were dismissed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The case of the petitioners is that as they were serving in the office of the District Education Officer, it was only the District Education Officer who could direct their retirement. In support of this contention they rely upon the West Pakistan Delegation of Powers Rules as substituted by notification No,SORI (SGA&ID)-15-4/71, dated 29-3-1974.
3. It is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners. They are governed by the West Pakistan Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules, as amended by notification No,SOR-III-1-9/72, dated 29- 7-1975. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that so far as their appointment was concerned, they fell under Rule 4(a). Now under this sub-rule the Deputy Director (in charge of administration) of their Region was their appointing authority. That being so, under section 12, Punjab Civil Servants Act, the Deputy Director was competent A to order their retirement in public interest on completion of 25 years service qualifying for pension or other retirement benefits. It is, therefore, incorrect on the part of the petitioners to contend that only the District Education Officer could make such an order in their case. The petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.