1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)‑Messrs Daud Ahmad Malik, Khalid Mahmood, Afzal Hussain, Rena Muhammad Akram, Imtiaz Ahmad Khan Mazari, have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Governor of the Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore and Government of the Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of these appeals it has been prayed that the impugned notification, dated 26th May, 1979, be set aside, as void ab initio and without lawful authority.

3. As the legal point involved in this case is common and the notification impugned is the same against which the grievance has arisen to all these appellants, we would decide these appeals, with our this single judgment.

4. Brief facts leading to these cases are as under: ‑ Messrs Daud Ahmad Malik, Khalid Mahmood, Afzal Hussain and Rana Muhammad Akram were appointed Assistant Directors, Labour Welfare on ad hoc basis, on the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Board, Government of the Punjab, w. e. f. 10th March, 1973, vide notification, dated 20th April, 1973. This notification expired on 15th August, 1974. They were again appointed as Assistant Directors, Labour Welfare in N.P.S.‑17, on ad hoc basis vide order, dated 14th November, 1974. The appellants were subsequently regularised w. e. f 29th September, 1975, by the order of the Governor of the Punjab dated 11th October, 1975, in relaxation of rules. The appointments of the appellants were however reviewed by the Government of the Punjab under M.L.I.‑21, as a result of interview and recommendation made by the Public Service Commission. As the appellants were declared eligible and suitable for appointments as Assistant Directors, Labour Welfare by the Public Service Commission, a notification, dated 17th November, 1977 was issued whereby it was ordered that the ad hoc appointments of the appellants, were converted on regular basis w. e. f. 3rd September, 1977. However, the appellants were removed from service vide notifica tion, dated 26th May, 1979, under section 11‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, hence these appeals. Imtiaz Ahmad Khan Mazari: The appellant was appointed as Labour Officer vide order dated 30th June, 1975, and was regularised as such on 3rd July, 1976. However, the appointment of the appellant was reviewed under M.L.I. 21 and on the recommendation of Public Service Commission, his appointment as Labour Officer was regularized from 3rd September, 1977, vide notification dated 3rd November, 1977. The appellant was removed from service vide notification, dated 26th May, 1979, under section. II‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

6. Before entering into the merits of these appeals, it may be mentioned here that all the appellants are in service under the stay order granted by the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case of all these appellants being identical with the case of Khan Fasahat Rehman Khan and Shabbir Hussain, in which this Tribunal has upheld their contention and has set aside the impugned notifications as void ab initio, therefore, he will rely on the said judgment, which he has placed on the record. We have already delivered a judgment in case of Fasahat Rehman Khan on 19th January, 1982, which has been accepted by the Government and no appeal against it has been filed. As this judgment has attained finality, we will follow the same in respect of these appeals, which are now pending before us. The crucial point decided by us in the said judgment was that as regular appointment of the appellant Fasahat Rehman Khan was notified on 17th November, 1977, the mischief of section 11‑A of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as amended in 1978, was not attracted in his case. Section 1 I‑A has given powers to the Governor to remove any of the person, so employed between 1st January, 1972 to 5th July, 1977. It was held in the said judgment that as the date of regular appointment of Fasahat Rehman Khan fell after 5th July, 1977, therefore, the Governor was not empowered to act under section 11‑A in his case. The case of the present appellants is absolutely similar with the case of Fasahat Rehman Khan, as they all have been removed by virtue of the same notification, by which Fasahat Rehman Khan was removed froth service. As the same notification has been set aside as void ab initio and without being lawful authority, in the case of Fasahat Rehman Khan as well as in the case of Shabbir Hussain, therefore, we have no other' alternative but to accept their appeals and hold that the cases of the present appellants also fell outside the arbit of the powers of the Governor, under section 11‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as amended in 1978,1 and, therefore, the order was void. The order being declared Void, no question of limitation would arise in any of these appeals, if it is so involved. According to the fundamental principle of law, no limitation runs against a void order.

7. The result is we accept the appeals, set aside the impugned notification, dated 26th May, 1979, in following our judgment delivered in case of Fasahat Rehman Khan (Appeal No. 254/1124 of 1981) announced on 19th January, 1982, which has attained finality, as no appeal was filed against the said order before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. There will be no order as to costs. The judgment be communicated to the parties. A.B. Appeals accepted.