1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AKRAM PATWARI AND 5 OTHERS Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION), GUJRANWALA AND OTHERS
| Citation | 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM PATWARI AND 5 OTHERS Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION), GUJRANWALA AND OTHERS |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Rules, 1963‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Rules, 1963‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM PATWARI AND 5 OTHERS Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION), GUJRANWALA AND OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 2. Rana Mukhtar Ahmed, Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue appearing for the Department tried to meet the objection by pointing out that some of the appellants initially belonged to the Cooperative Department and their services were transferred to the Consolidation Department by the order of the Provincial Government. Thus they could not be deemed to be on the general cadre of Patwaris, maintained at the Sub‑Divisional level in pursuance to the amendment in the West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwari Rules, 1964 as amended in 1972. He, thus contended that the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Slier Muhammad's case was inapplicable to the facts of these cases and supported the orders passed by the departmental authorities and submitted that the Commissioner had rightly overruled the objection. The department also brought to our notice the Government letters dated 8‑6‑1955 and 25‑6‑1955 vide which the entire service of Patwaris has been declared pensionable.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ Read with Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 12(ii)‑‑Pat waris of Co‑operative Department on abolition of their posts absorbed and posted in Consolidation Department‑Held, Patwaris of general cadre of Revenue Department‑Fall within competency of Collector concerned namely Assistant Commissioner‑Retirement order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), held, not competent hence set aside.
Judgment & Decree
"(ii) Whether with the abolition of their posts in the Co‑operative Department such staff will, henceforth, be part and parse: of the Revenue Department and would be subject to the administrative control of the Revenue Department in establishment matters." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "With regard to Point No. (ii) on the abolition of their posts in the Co‑operative Department the staff in question become part and parcel of the Revenue Department in establishment matters." Again on 29‑7‑1967 the Board of Revenue asked the Commissioners of the Lahore/Sargodha/ Multan and Peshawar Divisions for the following information (i) The number of posts required to be created with the lists of officials who remained reverted and are re‑absorbed against these posts for the purpose of claiming their salaries. (ii) The period for which these posts are required. (iii) The total expenditure involved thereto and the source of its meeting." It appears that after the receipt of the information, express sanction was accorded by the Board of Revenue to absorb the ex‑employees of Co‑opera tive Department in the Consolidation Department as per names specified in the lists issued by the Board of Revenue. But none of the appellant figured in the list. In fact, till very recently the Board of Revenue them selves have approached the S. & G. A. D. to clarify the matter with regard to Consolidation Patwaris. It was rather suggested by the Board of Revenue Punjab to amend the relevant provisions in the Delegation of Power Rules qua ex‑employees of the Co‑operative Department.
4. It appears that the arrangement in vague had been to borrow the Patwaris from the revenue cadre and when required for the consolida tion work. As such the appellants had to be treated as members of the "Revenue Cadre" of the Patwaris. With regard to the appeals against the orders passed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, same had also to be accepted, as neither the A. D. C. (Cons.) nor the Settlement Officer, after amendment dated 15‑7‑1972 in the West Pakistan (Northern Zone q Patwari Rules, 1964 was the "Collector concerned". The Department relied upon para. 2.12 of the Land Record Manual to content that when any District is under settlement operation the Settlement Officer is empowered to assume and discharge the functions of D. C/District Collector. However, we find that the provision did not relate to Kanungos and not to Patwaris. This Tribunal after a detailed examination of the relevant provisions of law, had laid down in Sher Muhammad's case, in Appeal No. 694/713 of 1974) that the Assistant Commissioner was the "Collector concerned" in the case of Patwaris. We reiterate our view in these cases also and hold accordingly. Consequently all the six appeals are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals accepted.