1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑ Muhammad Mansoor has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order of his retirement dated 1st January, 1980, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat and has impleaded the said Deputy Com missioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and the Province of the Punjab through the Collector, District Jhelum, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 1st January, 1980, by which he was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, be set aside and he may be re‑instated in service with all back benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was basically an Assistant of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, was work ing as Acting Superintendent in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jhelum, in N. P. S. 10, was retired after completion of 25 years of service qualify ing for pension and other retirement benefit, under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat. The appellant filed a representation to the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, Member, Board of Revenue, Full Board of Revenue and the Governor of the Punjab, and all of these were rejected. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the department and have seen the record of this case with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant was holding the post of Acting Superintendent in the Deputy Commis sioner Officer, Jhelum, he could only be retired by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division and not by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat. Reliance in this matter has been placed by the appellant on the order, dated 2nd September, 1973, to show that he was duly promoted as Super intendent from the substantive rank of Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner. 6. On the other hand this stand of the appellant has been controver ted by the learned District Attorney, who has submitted that the appellant was basically an Assistant of the office of the Deputy Commissioner and was working as Acting Superintendent as a stop‑gap arrangement due to relinquishment of the charge by Rana Muhammad Ishaq, the incumbent of the said post. According to the learned District Attorney, the appel lant has never enjoyed the status of Superintendent, Deputy Commissioner's Office, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, for his retirement, was absolutely correct. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find from the record that the appellant was basically an Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat and at certain juncture, he was allowed to work as Acting Superintendent of the said office by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, when the incumbent of the post had to be relieved. This arrangement was temporary till the arrival of the incumbent from the surplus pool of the Services, General Administration and Information Department. As soon as the appellant found that regular incumbent was going to take over, he taking advantage of the situation, nocked the doors of the Civil Court and was successful in obtaining the stay order. On the strength of the stay order he had to be allowed to continue as Acting Superintendent but as he could not be posted in his Home District on the said post; he was transferred to Jhelum. When the case of the appellant stood abated on the objections raised by the Government on the point of jurisdiction, the impugned order was passed by the competent authority. In view of these established facts on the record and the language of the order, dated 2nd September, 1973, relied upon by the appellant himself, we are of the considered opinion that the competent authority in his case would be the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat as he basically belongs on the strength of the said District on the basis of Assistant. 8. The result is we dismiss the appeal as the impugned order is protected by Article 13 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981. There will be no order as to costs. To be conveyed to the parties. A. E. Appeal dismissed.