1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. It would appear from prayer clause of the appellant's memo of appeal that he has prayed for condonation of the various breaks in his service having occurred from time to time. As has been admitted in the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents, there were in all three breaks: first of three months and 22 days from 26‑2‑1957 to 18‑6‑1957: second of two years five months and four days from 5‑4‑1902 to 9‑9‑1964 and third of seven months from 1‑7‑1965 to 1‑2‑1966. Relying on rule 2.12(i) of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred as the Pension Rules), the appellant's learned counsel submitted that Administrative Department have power to condone all gaps of service for the purpose of pension. On the other hand it is disclosed in the impugned order (Board of Revenue's order. dated 7‑9‑1991) that the appellant's request for condonation of the breaks in his service was rejected on the ground that the length of service of five years on both sides (of the breaks) was not completed. Consistent with this order the official respondents have taken same plea in para. 7 of the written statement wherein reliance has also been placed on rule 2.3 read with rule 2.12(i) of the Pension Rules. For appreciating the respective stands of the parties, it may be useful to reproduce both the rules 2.3 and 2.12(i) of the Pension Rules cited by the parties in support of their claims. They read as under: "2.3. Temporary and officiating Service.‑‑Temporary and officiating service shall count for pension as indicated below:‑‑ (i) Government servants borne on temporary establishment who have rendered more than five years continuous temporary service shall count such service for the purpose of pension or gratuity; and (ii) temporary and officiating service followed by confirmation shall also count for pension or gratuity. 2.12(i) Condonation of interruptions and deficiencies. The Administrative Department may for purposes of pension condone all gaps between periods of qualifying service of a Government servant."

4. The repeated breaks in the appellant's service clearly indicated that his service was temporary and officiating. Accordingly as provided in rule 2.3(i) hereinabove, he could count only that period of his service for pension, which had run continuously for five years. In other words the temporary or officiating service for less than five years does not qualify for pension. Consequently the Administrative Department has powers under rule 2.12(i) to condone only that gap in service, on either side of which the Government servant concerned has rendered five years continuous service. This view finds support from the comments following the above rule 2.12. The comments read as under: ‑ "By virtue of Rule 2.12(i) read with Rule 2.3 of these Rules (Pension Rules), broken spells of service can also count for pension if they are formally condoned by the Administrative Department. The main condition for condonation is that service on both sides of the break should be qualifying for pension. In case the service is temporary or officiating, its length on both sides (of the break) should be over five years. If it is of lesser length, the service should be permanent .............. If these conditions are not fulfilled, condonation is not permissible:" Thus it is abundantly clear from the above clarifications that in case of temporary or officiating service, as is the case of the appellant, any break in such service cannot be condoned unless the length of service on both sides of the break is over five years.

5. Keeping the conditions for condonations in view, we have to see if the breaks in the appellant's service sought to be condoned fulfil the said conditions. As pointed out above there are in all three breaks in the appellant's service. However, the necessary condition of over five years' continuous service on both sides of each break in service remains unsatisfied. The first break that occurred on 26‑2‑1957 was preceded by a little less than two years' service and was followed by service of less than five years. Similarly another break, which took place on 5‑4‑1962 was preceded by less than five years service and was followed by a little less than one year service. The third and last break having occurred on 1‑7‑1965 was preceded by a little less than one year service, though it was followed by over five years service. Thus in case of first two breaks, the length of service on both sides was less than five years, but so far as third break was concerned, the service preceding it was less than five years. As such the conditions for condonation of service breaks were not satisfied in case of all the three service breaks. Consequently the condonation was not permissible under the Pension Rules.

6. For the above reasons the appellant's request for condonation of the aforesaid breaks in his service was rightly turned down. We see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal on this 11th day of March, 1992 at Karachi. A.A./389/Sr.S Appeal dismissed.