1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Compulsory retirement‑‑‑Employee who was P.T.C. teacher had claimed that he was not allowed to join school where he was transferred‑‑‑Competent Authority to which matter was referred, after holding disciplinary proceedings directed compulsory retirement of the employee on ground that employee had remained absent from service for long period of twelve years‑‑‑Neither period of long absence was condoned nor employee was allowed to join service‑‑ Question of joining service at later stage would not arise as employee had since long reached age of superannuation ‑‑‑No order of reinstatement of employee having ever been passed by competent Authority, order of condoning long absence of twelve years would also not arise‑‑‑Employee could approach competent officer for completing his pension papers so that he could receive his pension at the earliest. Kh. Haris Ahmad for Petitioner. Rana M. Arshad, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent, Date of hearing: 29th September, 1992. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the petitioner joined the Education Department, Government of the Punjab as FTC (J.V.) Teacher on 9‑6‑1951. He was transferred from Chak No. 210/GB Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad to Chak No. 718, Pir Mahal, District Faisalabad, but according to his version he was not allowed to join the said school on the plea that neither the transfer order was received by the school authorities nor there was any vacancy of the PTC Teacher in the said school. It is averred that the petitioner went time and again to the Assistant Education Officer concerned and the District Education Officer (M), Faisalabad, with the request that he should be posted in any other school but no one cared to accommodate him and as such the petitioner remained a rolling stone despite having served the department for more than twenty‑five years. According to the petitioner he then served a legal notice on the District Education Officer and the Director of Education Schools demanding his posting and payment of salary from 1‑5‑1975 onwards. It is averred that some action was taken on this legal notice but the petitioner was not informed of the final order, if any, passed thereon. Thereafter the petitioner statedly approached the Secretariat of the Chief Minister Punjab, by submitting an application and the matter was then referred to the Education Secretary for appropriate action vide Memo, dated 13‑11‑1986. Consequently the Education Department desired the Director of Education, Faisalabad vide SO (note‑1) 8‑30/85, dated 8‑10‑1987 to allow the petitioner to join his duty and also to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and also directed to proceed against those who were responsible for not taking action against the Teacher during his long absence of twelve years.

2. On receipt of this direction to allow the petitioner to join the duty, the matter was referred to the competent authority which had vide order dated 16‑10‑1986 after holding disciplinary proceeding directed compulsory retirement of the petitioner with effect from 1‑5‑1975. It was pointed out that in case the petitioner is to be allowed to join the service, his long period of twelve years of absence will have to be condoned by the competent authority. Neither the period of long absence was condoned nor the petitioner was allowed to join the service. Faced with this situation, the petitioner filed this Constitutional petition and vide order dated 11‑4‑1989, the petition was admitted making note of the fact that no final order appears to have been passed by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab in the Education Department on the reference which was necessitated in view of letter dated 8‑10‑1987 directing that the petitioner be allowed to join the post.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate‑General who has taken me through the report and parawise comment submitted by the respondent. The question of joining the service at this stage does not arise as the petitioner has since long reached the age of superannuation. Moreover, no order of reinstatement was ever passed by the competent authority what to talk of the order of condoning the long absence of twelve years. The memo. dated 8‑10‑1987 issued by the Section Officer does not amount to an order of reinstatement as admittedly the Section Officer is not the competent authority so far as the petitioner is concerned. The so‑called direction to allow the petitioner to join his post, as best, is to be treated as a mere recommendation but the said recommendation is of no legal value as the competent authority has neither cancelled the order of compulsory retirement dated 16‑10‑1986 nor has condoned the absence of twelve long years. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by requiring the competent authority to pass final order on the reference made in pursuant to the letter dated 8‑10‑1987. The crux of the matter is that the petitioner stands retired since 1st May, 1975 as per the order dated 16‑10‑1986.

4. The petitioner if so advised should approach the competent Officer for completing his pension papers so that he may receive his pension as early as possible. Such an application, if made, shall be attended to promptly and the concerned quarters shall see that the petitioner starts getting his pension within a period of three months: With this observation, this petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./B‑86/L Order accordingly.