1989 SCMR 1450 (PLP)
Syed ASAD‑UL‑HAQ Petitioner Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1450 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Syed ASAD‑UL‑HAQ Petitioner Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1450 (PLP)?
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 1989 SCMR 1450 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1450 (PLP) (Syed ASAD‑UL‑HAQ Petitioner Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Surpeme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No.887 of 1981).
- Sh. Abdul Majeed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Surpeme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No.920 of 1981).
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S.12‑‑West Pakistan Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules, R4(a) (as amended by Notification No.SOR‑III‑1‑9/72, dated 29‑7‑19751‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Civil servant's , retirement from service on completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension‑‑Legality‑‑Petitioners' contention that as they were serving in the office of District Education Officer, only District Education Officer could direct their retirement and not the Deputy Director (Administration) of the Region, repelled‑‑Held: Deputy Director Administration being appointing Authority, under S.12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, he alone was competent to order retirement of civil servants/petitioners in public interest on completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension nr other retirement benefits‑‑Civil servant's retirement being correct and legal, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Syed Asad‑ul‑Haq, petitioner in C.P.S.LA. No.887 of 1981, was serving as Assistant in the office of the District Education Officer, Bahawalpur. Ch. Sarwar Ali, petitioner in C.P.S.LA. No.920/81, was serving as Superintendent in the same office. By an order dated 13‑1‑1980 they were retired from service by the Deputy Director (Administration) in the Divisional Directorate of Education on completion of 25 years service qualifying them to receive pension of other reitrement benefits. They made representations against their reitrement but without any success. They then filed appeals before the Service Tribunal. Their appeals were dismissed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The case of the petitioners is that as they were serving in the office of the District Education Officer, it was only the District Education Officer who could direct their retirement. In support of this contention they rely upon the West Pakistan Delegation of Powers Rules as substituted by notification No.SORI (SGA&ID)‑15‑4/71, dated 29‑3‑1974.
3. It is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners. They are governed by the West Pakistan Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules, as amended by notification No.SOR‑III‑1‑9/72, dated 29‑7‑1975. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that so far as their appointment was concerned, they fell under Rule 4(a). Now under this sub‑rule the Deputy Director (in charge of administration) of their Region was their appointing authority. That being so, under section 12, Punjab Civil Servants Act, the Deputy Director was competent A to order their retirement in public interest on completion of 25 years service qualifying for pension or other reitrement benefits. It is, therefore, incorrect on the part of the petitioners to contend that only the District Education Officer could make such an order in their case. The petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. AA./A‑466/S Petitions dismissed.