1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BASHIR AHMAD Versus D.C., SIALKOT and others
| Citation | 1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahor High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD Versus D.C., SIALKOT and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahor High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BASHIR AHMAD Versus D.C., SIALKOT and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah and Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Petitioner.
- S.M. Zubair, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th January, 1985.
- 3. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General states that in view of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, dated 2‑3‑1955, the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 21‑1‑1980 shall be withdrawn and a fresh order of retirement of the petitioner shall be passed, if necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to it.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 12(ii)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Premature retirement‑‑Employee joining service on 2‑3‑1955, retired on 21‑1‑1980 on assumption of having completed 25 years of service‑‑Employee could have been retired only after 1‑3‑1980 on completion of 25 years of service‑‑Employer realizing mistake as to premature retirement, undertaking to withdraw earlier order of retirement and to issue fresh order of retirement in accordance with requirements of law‑‑Employee having no objection to fresh order of retirement, petition allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah and Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Petitioner. S.M. Zubair, A.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, dated 2‑3‑1955, a photostat copy of the same is on the record, in which it is stated that "He being a candidate of this office is appointed as Junior Clerk in my office in the grade of Rs.60‑4‑100/5‑120 subject to a maximum of Rs.75 per month, plus the usual other allowances in force. His appointment is of purely temporary nature and his services are liable to be terminated at a month's notice without assigning any reason." He continued to serve the Department in due course. Vide order, dated 21‑1‑1980, the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot observed that he (the petitioner) "has completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension or other retirement benefits" and "Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, 1, Malik Jehangir Khan, Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot hereby direct it‑: public interest that Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Junior Grade Clerk, Wasil Baqi Nawis, Shakargarh shall retire from Government service with immediate effect ." This is challenged through the aforetitled constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot as a Junior Clerk, vide his order, dated 2‑3‑1955; therefore, he was to complete his 25 years of service on 1‑3‑1980. The impugned order passed earlier on 21‑1‑1980 on the assumption that the petitioner had completed 25 years of service is patently mistaken and without lawful authority. The petitioner could have been retired only after 1‑3‑1980.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General states that in view of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, dated 2‑3‑1955, the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 21‑1‑1980 shall be withdrawn and a fresh order of retirement of the petitioner shall be passed, if necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to it.
4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. A.A. Petition allowed.