1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The relevant facts for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant was serving as Junior Clerk in Zila Council, Faisalabad. He was working in Tax Branch when on 25‑5‑1975, he was suspended on the allegation of embezzlement. The Respondent No.l after observing due formalities proceeded to dismiss the appellant from service vide order dated 30‑11‑1976. The appellant challenged the order of his dismissal from service through an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division. This appeal was dismissed on 1‑3‑1977 and thereafter filed constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The same was also dismissed on merits. The Respondent No.l on the one hand had initiated departmental proceeding and on the other hand got a case under section 409, PPC registered against the appellant. However, the appellant was acquitted in that case by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption vide order dated 16‑12‑1980. The appellant after arming himself with the order of the Special Judge moved an application for re‑instatement before Respondent No.l, which was dismissed on 1‑4‑1981. The appellant thereafter started second round of litigation and filed appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, which was dismissed on 6‑6‑1981. The appellant submitted representation before Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department. His representation was rejected on 1‑10‑1981. The appellant filed a civil suit. This civil suit was still in progress when the appellant submitted another application for re‑instatement and strangely enough the same was accepted and appellant was re‑instated in service on 30‑7‑1983. However, he was deprived of the back benefits. The appellant challenged the latter portion of the order pertaining to the back benefits before the Controlling Authority. The Respondent No.l when realised the massive illegality by passing order of re‑instatement order without jurisdiction in the face of the order of High Court, proceeded to rescind the same vide order dated 15‑9‑1983. This resulted in fourth round of litigation. The appellant filed a civil suit second in the series and at the same time filed appeal before respondent No‑4, which was dismissed on 5‑10‑1983. Thereafter, he filed appeal before Respondent No.4 and other before Respondent No.3 against the same order. Both the appeals were dismissed and thereafter he filed a consolidated representation before Respondent No.2 which was rejected vide order dated 11‑12‑1986.

2. The appellant has now decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by filing the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

3. The appellant is not well advised to file this appeal as he is not a civil servant. It is true that the member of the local council service has been restored the status of civil servant by virtue of section 44 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which reads as under:‑ "

44. Members of Local Council service to be civil servant. (1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any of per law, the members of the Local Council Service constituted under the Ordinance shall be deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (IX of 1974). It is clear from reading of the section that it is only the member of Local Council and not entire staff of Local Council which has peen treated as civil servant under Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Therefore, the appeal is incompetent.

4. The upshot of this discussion is that the appeal is dismissed as incompetent. S.Q./145/Sr.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed