1982 PLP 605 (PLC(CS))
SHAMSUZZAMAN Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
| Citation | 1982 PLP 605 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SHAMSUZZAMAN Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 605 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 605 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 605 (PLC(CS)) (SHAMSUZZAMAN Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
3. The sole ground on which Mr. Saleem Raza, the learned represen tative of the appellant, sought to assail the impugned decision was that the orders of retirement in respect of the appellant were passed by the Divisional Commercial Officer who was not competent under the rules to retire the appellant. The order on which Mr. Saleem Raza sought to rely is dated 3rd December, 1979 and it reads as follows:‑ "To The D. P. O., Karachi, Quote Ref. No. KDC/101‑R & D/77/Staff Dated 3‑12‑1979 Retirement of Coml. Staff Ref : Your letter No. 729‑B/8/1806/PT Dated 2‑12‑1979 Mr. Muhammad Shamsuzaman Khan SCA/G locally officiating as Investigator (Dev) has been relieved on retirement w. e. f. 3‑12‑1979 f. n. vide your above‑cited letter. His date of birth is 7‑9‑1919. Sd/‑ Divisional Commercial Officer (Dev) Karachi Copy to Mr. Muhammad Shamsuzaman Khan Investigator (D)." A bare perusal of the above order shows that the said order merely recalls the fact that the appellant stood relieved on retirement with effect from 3rd December 1979 and cannot be construed as an order of retirement. The appellant in fact stood retired in view of the Instructions contained in the letter No. E‑77‑RT‑I‑I1 dated 29th January 1977, from Secretary, Railway Board, Lahore to the Chief Administrative Officer and the F. A. & C. A. O., Pakistan Railways, Lahore. According to the said Instructions a railway servant will stand retired on completion of sixty years of age, except where a competent authority has otherwise directed. In the instant case, admittedly, no order to the contrary has been issued by the competent authority. As such the appellant auto matically stood retired on completing his sixty years of age. It was not necessary at all for the competent authority to issue an order for his retirement. It was only in those cases where the competent authority had decided to retire a person either on completion of twenty‑five years of service, qualifying for pension, or on a date other than the one on which the railway employee is to complete sixty years of age, that the competent authority is required to pass orders.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit to this appeal and dismiss the same to limine.