1984 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Muhammad IShaq Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded District Education Officer, Sheikhupura, Deputy Director (Schools) Lahore Division, Lahore and Director of Education, Lahore, Division Lahore, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that respondents may be directed to issue necessary order of nationalization for the service of the appellant with effect from 1st July, 1970 and to make payment of salary and allowances to him since that date. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a school teacher working in Government Millat High School, Dera Niazi Sahib, Moranwala, District Sheikhupura on 1st December, 1971. According to the appellant the school was nationalized on 1st October, 1972 but since then he has neither been paid any salary nor his status as teacher has been recognized. Revision petition made by the appellant to the respondents did not bear any fruit. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the depart ment and have perused various annexure placed on the record, as well as the record so produced by the department. The learned counsel has submitted that his appellant was teacher and working at the time of Nationalization, therefore, he should have been taken on the Government role and should have been paid accordingly all dues alongwith arrears. The grievances of the learned counsel is that the Department has purposely omitted his name and has not brought him on. the role of nationalized teacher. 5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel of the appellant and while going through Annexure 'A' which is sheet anchor of the appellant case and his appointment letter, we have found that same bears neither any number nor any date to show that it was an authentic letter and not a forged one. Unless and until there is proof on the record that this appointment letter had been duly numbered and duly entered into a order book it would not be possible to accept at its face values as letter of this kind can be produced by anybody at any time at his own will and choice. While going through the Annexure `A' another document attached on which reliance has also been placed by the appellant, it is revealed that this document was prepared by the Liaison Officer and the name of the appellant is mentioned at Serial No. 5 with an observation that he was untrained and unpaid teacher of the depart ment and for this reason he was not brought on the Government role as nationalized teacher. On this premises the department was justified to treat him as what he was i.e. an untrained teacher, who did not fell within the category of a regular appointee in the said cadre. With these two documents on record which are main stay of appellants case, the case of appellant becomes highly doubtful and it becomes manifest that he was not eligible for nationalisation. When we probe further, we find that Annexure `H' another document so relied upon by him almost declares the appellant as vocational teacher and not as a regular vernacular teacher as claimed by him. Under these circumstances it is very difficult to reject the stand of the respondent that the appellant's name was never borne on any official record as nationalized teacher. We have further satisfied ourselves by perusing the record of this case and have no hesitation to declare, that claim of the appellant that he was vernecular teacher duly paid, is absolutely hollow. With regards to the argument of the learned District Attorney that case of appellant suffers from an act of lachi on his part, we find lot of strength in the same. This indolence on the part of the appellant is hardly condonable, as nobody will work without salary for such long period and will remain contented with his lot without agitating his claim before any forum. Such an attitude is highly illogical as well unconcievable. 6. It would be preposterous to believe that a person who is dented his salary for full eleven years would not raise his little finger against such an act of injustice. Such like indolent persons cannot be permitted to dig up their claims after such inordinate delay and that too on the strength of document uncertain and doubtful in nature. The stand of department is absolutely logical by ignoring his claim and no exception can be taken to its decision, by which it has rejected his plea that M. L. R. 118 was not attracted in such like cases. The result is, we dismiss the appeal as without any merits. The parties will bear their own cost. M. I. Appeal dismissed.