1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976)

S. 12

Retirement

Appellant, who was retired without pension and gratuity, seeking re-employment after six years of his retirement, accepted that he left service because of his illness and for providing a substitute to department i.e. one of his relatives, for appointment in his place

Appellant, in his application to authorities first requested for monetary relief or pension but in second application he prayed for re-employment

Appeal of appellant to next higher authority was badly barred by time and he failed to avail of his departmental remedy at law

Held, appellant could not seek re-employment if he had once given up idea of service and had voluntarily afforded a chance of service to one of his relatives

Authorities were, however- directed to pay gratuity to appellant ii not pension. Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant. Mirza Muhammad Nisar Addl. A.-G. for Respondents. SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).

In the instant appeal, the appellant Khadum Hussain Khan impugns the order of hi: retirement No.2900-2, dated 22-6-1987. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as Qooli in the P.W.D. and that he was retired from service because of his illness w.e.f. 3-3-1981. He remained out of service till 10-3-1987 the date on which he submitted an application to the Xen P.W.D Rawalakot for some monetary help or pension in lieu of his service rendered b5 him in the Department. On this application, the pension case of the appellant was prepared and submitted to the office of the Accountant-General but the same could not be finalised till 5-12-1988 when the appellant made another application/appeal to the Superintending Engineer P.W.D. for setting aside the order of his retirement dated 22-6-1987 and re-employing him in service. But no decision was taken on his appeal before Superintending Engineer and ultimately he had to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for the redress of his grievances By a short order of this Tribunal, the appeal was admitted for regular hearing and the respondents were called upon to submit their objections, if any. The objections taken by the respondents were that the appellant had left his service because of his illness of his own accord and that he had himself provided one o1 his relatives as his substitute to replace him. The appellant did not ask for his reinstatement on his post before the Xen Rawalakot and in fact he had brought an application before him for grant of pension and some monetary relief although on appeal before the Superintending Engineer he made mother attempt for seeking his re-employment in the P.W.D. The appellant is not an aggrieved civil servant and his appeal before this Tribunal is also barred by the law of limitation.

2. We have considered the arguments as were addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel of each party and have also gone through the record placed on the file by either parties. There is no denying the fact that the appellant fell ill and remained out of service w.e.f. 31-3-1981 till 10-3-1987. But the unfortunate aspect of the case is that the order of his retirement was made by the Xen, Rawalakot after a long interval on 22-6-1987. There is nothing on the file why the Department concerned kept the retirement order of the appellant pending for an indefinite long period ranging over six years. It is always in the interest of smooth administration that the order of administrative nature should be made at tile earliest opportunity. But in the instant case there is no record to show whether the appellant had himself left the service excepting the application of the appellant that he made after a period of six year before the Xen P.W.D. Rawalakot. In this application it is duly accepted by the appellant that he had left the service because of his illness and had provided a substitute to the department in his stead for service. In his application he has not claimed for reinstatement/re-employment on his post but has requested the Department for some monetary relief or pension. However, in his application before the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., he has claimed it that the order of his retirement should be set aside and he should be re-employed in service. We are afraid, the appellant cannot seek re-employment if he had once given up the idea of service and had voluntarily afforded a chance of service to one of his relatives. The appellant made his first application to Xen Rawalakot on 10-3-1987 and subsequent application on 5-12-1988 before Superintending Engineer P.W.D. There is an interval of one and a half years between the two applications while the appeal before this Tribunal was brought on 3-4-1989. The appellant was required to bring an appeal before the Superintending Engineer P.W.D. within a period of 60 days from receiving, the order of his retirement. But he submitted his appeal before Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. at a belated stage on 5-12-1988. It is very much established that the appellant failed to avail of his departmental remedy at law well in time.

3. Before parting with this case, we would like to remark that the appellant must get the benefits of gratuity if not the pension. His gratuity shall be got decided by the Department at the earliest opportunity. Appeal fails on merits as well as on the point of limitation and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. M.Y.H./112/Sr.A Appeal rejected.