1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing : 27th July, 1982. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)‑ Mansoor Ahmad Malik has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab, Secretary Depart ment of Rehabilitation and Settlement, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that his retirement order dated 24th January, 1980, under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, passed by Mr. A. K. Khalid, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation and Settlement Department and Member, Board of Revenue, on behalf of the Governor, Punjab, be set aside and he be declared to be in service from the date of his retirement. It has been further submitted that the order dated 2nd September, 1981, by which he was informed that his review petition has been rejected, be also declared without any force.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was working as A. A. O. in Grade‑16 was retired after completion of 25 years service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits, by the Governor of the Punjab under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. His representation as well as his Review Petition, after being duly consi dered, was rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order was illegal and void as he was not afforded any opportu nity of being heard in person, before passing the said impugned order. It has been further argued that his Review Petition was rejected by the Minister who was not competent authority for the disposal of the said petition.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced at this preliminary stage of hearing and find that no exception can be taken to the impugned order as the case of the appellant is hit by Article 13 of the P. C. O., 1981, which clearly debars the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in sitting over judgment against such orders. The appellant has completed 25 years' service and has been retired under section 12 (fi) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, with all pension benefits etc. The law on this point is settled that such like retirement cannot be challenged in view of P. C. O., 1981 do held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, through it various judgments on this issue. This Tribunal can only interfere with such order, when it is found that the civil servant who has been so retired, has not completed 25 years of service and the authority retiring such a civil servant, was not competent to do so. In the present case both these condi tions are duly fulfilled therefore, no valid exception can be taken under the law to the said impugned order.

7. The result is we do not find any merits in this case which is dis missed at the preliminary stage of hearing. Parties shall bear their own costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.