1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--The appellant Maula Bakhsh retired Waterman, Government Girls High School, Bhowana Bazar, Faisalabad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 24-6-1985 passed by the District Accounts Officer, Faisalabad (Respondent No.2) vide which the grant of the benefit of pension to the appellant was refused. The appellant has impleaded the Province of Punjab through Collector, Faisalabad, District Accounts Officer, Faisalabad, Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad through its Mayor and Director Education of Schools, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad as respondents Nos.l, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and directing the respondents to pay pension as admissible under the rules to the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Waterman by the Faisalabad Municipal Committee in 1954 and the appellant served his duties at various placed under the Municipal Committee. Subsequently in the year 1975 the Municipal Schools in which the appellant was performing his duties were taken over by the Province of Punjab i.e. Provincialised alongwith the staff and transferred to the Government of Punjab Education Department. The appellant was retired from the service on attaining the age of 60 years in 1981 and submitted an application for grant of pension but after lengthy correspondence was declined to grant of pension by the District Accounts Officer on the grounds that the appellant performed his duties less than 10 years after provincialization. The appellant felt aggrieved on the ground that he served the Municipal Committee since 1954 and was entitled to pensionary benefits like the Headmasters and Teachers of the Schools while counting the period of service rendered in the Municipal Committee preceding to provincialization in 1975. Hence this appeal. 4, At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was entitled to the pension because the school in which he performed his duties as a Waterman was Provincialised in the year 1915 and was entitled-to the benefits of the pension like all the teaching staff of the School. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Notification No.SC (NS.) 1-3/73, dated 30-9-1975 and stated that the services of the appellant rendered under the Local Bodies prior to the Provincialization of the Schools were to be counted for pension under the Government. The learned counsel for, the appellant closed his arguments while stating that the respondents were ignoring the Notification dated 30-9-1975 without sufficient reasons.

5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the notification cited by the learned counsel for the appellant relates to Headmasters/Headmistresses of Provincialised High Schools as expressely stated in para 3 of the notification and in any case it does not relate to the appellant or his class. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the appellant was entitled to benefits of pension only if he rendered service not less than 10 years after his service was provincialized in 1975 but he retired preceding to completion of 10 years.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney. We have also consulted the relevant record including the written objections of the respondent No.2 (District Accounts Officer, Faisalabad). We find that undisputedly the appellant was serving with the Municipal Committee/ Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad preceding the provincialization of his services in 1975. The appellant has not been able to show that preceding to provincialization his job of Waterman was pensionable. This, is also on the record that the notification relied upon by the appellant is prescribed for the Headmasters and Headmistresses of the Schools and not for the appellant or his class. This is also an E established fact and not contested by the appellant that his service is less than 10 years after the provincialization till the date of his retirement on attaining the age of 60 years. Accordingly we are inclined to agree with the District Accounts Officer because the appellant does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 2.1 of West Pakistan CSR Rules, 1963. We have also observed that the case of the appellant was decided in line with the case of Sultan Ali, Chowkidar regarding grant of the pension on the advice of the Finance Department and the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department conveyed the decision dated 7-7-1982 with following observations:- "In supersession of our early advice Finance Department agrees with the view of the District Accounts Officer, Faisalabad. The official would be entitled to pension from the date of regularization of contigent paid staff i.e. 31-10-1972."

7. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed. Judgment to be communicated to the parties. No order for the costs. M.Y.H./109/Sr.P Appeal dismissed