1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Manzoor Htlssain, Dy. Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th April, 1994. The appellant, Muhammad Ramzan Tahir, M.Sc. Physics appeared before the Punjab Public Service Commission in June, 1975; he left for U.K for doing Ph.D before the result was declared by the Public Service Commission; later he was declared successful in November 1975 and was offered the post of a lecturer in Physics vide order dated 19‑11‑1975: he accepted the offer while in UK informing the respondent‑department that he would join his duty by 13‑12‑1975 (Annexure A); he reported for duty on 5‑1‑1976; went back to U.K on 12‑1‑1976 for completion of his Ph.D course after making an application on 6‑1‑1976 for long leave; came back on 28‑4‑1980, and again reported for duty, but was given a job on 26‑9‑1982. He was not paid salary for the period for 28‑‑1980 to 25‑9‑1982 because of his absence abroad without leave. The period of his absence namely 5‑1‑1976 to 25‑9‑1982 was regularised by the Chief Minister as extraordinary leave subject to entitlement. The department, however, did not act upon the order of the Chief Minister and hence the appellant came to this Tribunal.

2. The respondents opposed the appeal stating that the appellant had not joined service on 5‑1‑1976 and that he joined only on 26‑9‑1982 on return from U.K. and that he was regularly paid thereafter. The matter is now clinched by the Chief Minister in his order dated 27‑3‑1991 whereby the period of the appellant's absence from 5‑1‑1976 up to 25‑9‑1982 was regularised as extraordinary leave subject to entitlement. Counsel for the appellant accepts this statement. It is to be seen why the Chief Minister's order was not given effect to faithfully. He has the power under rule 23 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 197, to relax all rules in the given case and pass appropriate orders in that behalf. It was claimed that the aforesaid orders were made in exercise of his powers and that the department had no option but to act thereupon. The proposition advanced by the learned counsel appears to be unexceptionable. Rule 23 ibid confers unlimited powers on the Chief Minister to relax application of the rules in a given case of hardship. The appellant appeared to have been caught by typical circumstances. After appearing before the Public Service Commission, he had to leave for UK for doing Ph. D. and he was still there when he received the offer. He carne back hurriedly; reported per duty but the Principal of the College concerned refused to accept him; in the meantime he had to go back to complete the higher studies in UK and when he returned, he found himself in the odds which ultimately took him to the Chief Minister who quite beneficently removed his hardship. Ostensibly, it was a fit case where such indulgence ought to have been shown and the department should have accepted the same as fait accompli rather than objecting to the exercise of his exclusive powers by the Chief Minister. The orders deserved implicit obedience.

3. The contentions that the appellant had not physically joined or did not work or that he could not be adjusted against any post etc. etc. lost all weight, for, once the Chief Minister accepted his tenure right from 5‑1‑1976 onwards till 25‑9‑1982, he established himself as civil servant qua this period, and it is unsavoury for the department to render this decision nugatory.

4. As a result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant's absence with effect from 5‑1‑1976 to 25‑9‑1982 is held to have been regularised as extraordinary leave subject to entitlement.

5. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./449/Sr.P Appeal allowed.