1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Abid Nawaz for Appellant. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑Mr. Muhammad Khurshid has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Province of Punjab through Secretary Food Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.

2. The appellant has made this appeal against the order dated 10‑2‑1981 passed by the Government of Punjab, Food Department wherein his appeal has been rejected and he has been denied the benefit of war service. He has also prayed that Government be directed to award him pension which would accrue to the appellant had he been awarded war service benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Mr, Muhammad Khurshid joined the office of the District Food Controller, Food Department, Lahore as Junior Clerk on 9‑I 1‑1953. Due to retrenchment his service was terminated on 24‑1‑1956. He was re-employed in the Food Department as Junior Clerk on 27‑1‑1956. Prior to joining the Food Department, the appellant had worked in the then Indian Armed Forces for the period from 2‑9‑1942 to 21‑6‑1953 as Havaldar Clerk. Being ex‑serviceman, according to appellant, he was entitled to war service benefits while appointed in the civil side. . The appellant applied for the same in the year 1954. Since then, the appellant has been pursuing his case for giving him war service benefits and has been following the same vigorously but his efforts have borne no fruit and lastly his case has been rejected, by Government of Punjab, Food Department, vide their order dated 10‑2‑1981. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard both the parties, consulted the record as well with the help, of the representative of the respondent and also representative of the Finance Department. The claim of the appellant is that he has rendered about 11 years war service in the then Indian Armed Forces as Havaldar Clerk and he was entitled for counting of this service towards his seniority while serving in the civil side in the Food Department. While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the appellant, quoted various notifications and instructions of the Government on the issue in favour of granting war service benefits to the appellant. It was also submitted that at different occasions .the Food Department had made promises to give him the benefit of the war service but without any result. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Finance Department Mr. Riaz‑ul‑Haq Awan, Under Secretary, and representative of the Food Department submitted that they had considered .the case of the appellant sympathetically keeping in view the rules and regulations for giving him the war service benefits but his case did not fall under that category and they were riot in a position to help the appellant. It was further clarified that there was no evidence on the record of the Food Department that appellant was ever appointed against any was reserved vacancies created from 18‑9‑1943 to 1‑1‑1946. Thud, the appellant is not entitled for war Service benefits.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record. The order No. E C (D)‑53/82611 dated 9‑11‑1953 whereby the appellant was appointed as a temporary Junior Clerk in the first instance on the civil side in the Food Department by District Foods-Controller (D) Lahore and then again appointing him as Junior Clerk w. e. f. 27‑1‑1956 by Director of Food West Pakistan vide his No. Food‑FA‑2‑56/4583‑B dated 7‑2‑1956, do not show that the appellant was entitled to benefit for the war service rendered by him. Thus, we are in agreement with the Food Department and the Finance Department that at the time of his joining the service with the respondent, he was not given any assurance for giving him the benefit of the war service and thus we do not find any justification for allowing him the war service benefits at this belated stage ; particularly when there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant was appointed against the war reserved vacancy. 6.Keeping in view the above analysis, we hold that there is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.