1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent. Mohsin Ali has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 29th January, 1983 of the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and 18th August, 1983 of the Member, Board of Revenue be set aside. The appeal be accepted and direction be given for the appellant to be appoin ted as Patwari accordingly.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed Patwari on 21st February, 1975 by the Assistant Commissioner, Jaranwala, Dis trict Faisalabad and posted in the village 583;

6. B. as there was general strike of Patwaris and the appellant alongwith other 42 persons was appointed. The strike was called on 4th March, 1975, and the charge was taken back from the appellant. However, some of the Patwaris were given regular appointment later on, but the appellant was refused on the ground that he is overage by 10 years. The appellant moved an application to the Minister, Revenue, Punjab, who on 1st November, 1981, recommended to the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad for his appointment against the existing vacancies. The case was considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Faisaladad but rejected on 29th January, 1983. Thus, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner. Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad which was considered and rejected vide his order, dated 10th April, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties, It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was appointed as Parwari in the year 1975 as a result of general strike of Patwaris alongwith others. The strike was called off after few days and the charge was taken back from the appellant. However, a promise was given to him that after the strike he would be made permanent. But later on in the year 1981, 15 persons were given appointment, as regular Patwaris but he was ignored on the ground that he was overage. The appellant's counsel has produced a list of 8 other persons who were also overage ranging from three to twelve years but their age was got relaxed from the Governor and they were appointed as Patwaris. However, the case of the appellant was not consi dered for relaxation of age by the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, though, he was overage by 10 years only. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has been treated discriminately and refusing to relax the overage in his favour, as was done in other cases, was unlawful and injustice has been done with him. The appellant's counsel has prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the appellant as Patwari from the date from which his other colleagues were so appointed.

5. The learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has relied on the para-wise comments submitted by the respondent. He has also made a reference to the impugned order, dated 10th April, 1983 of the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and has submitted that there was no justification for relaxation of age of the appellant as is clear from this detailed order of the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad. Hence the claim of the appellant/appellant's counsel is uncalled for, un justified and cannot be met. He has submitted that the impugned orders of the respondents are perfectly correct, lawful and no exception can be taken against these.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the documents in this case. I have perused very carefully the impugned order, dated 10th April, 1983, of the Commis sioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and I find that full explanation and reasons have been given in rejecting the appeal of the appellant as no justi fication was also found by the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division for relaxation of age specially in view of the facts that the appellant never moved any application or filed any appeal to seek relief from any compe tent authority. I am fully satisfied with the justification so given in the impugned order and I find that no injustice has been done with the appellant.

7. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.