1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).‑‑The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 13‑9‑1995 of Central Board of Revenue, whereby his request for condonation of 2 days' break m service for pensionary and other benefits, has been rejected. .

2. Brief facts of the case are that while serving as Lecturer in English (B‑17) on ad hoc basis in the Federal Government College for Men, H‑8 Islamabad, the appellant qualified C.S.S. Examination and was allocated to the Income Tax Group. He joined Civil Academy, Lahore on 19th October, 1991. Before joining the Civil Academy Lore the appellant resigned from the post of Lecturer, where he was working on ad hoc basis, on 16th October, 1991. Thus by this appeal he wants that the period of his ad hoc service with, effect from 15th November, 1990 till 16th October, 1991 as Lecturer in English B‑17 in the Federal Government College for Men, H‑8, Islamabad, may be counted for the pensionary and other benefits by condoning the intervening period of two days' break. He applied to the Secretary, Finance for the purpose but vide C B.R's order dated 13‑9‑1995, his request has not been acceded to in view of the conditions laid down in C.S.R. 361, against which he has come up in appeal to this Tribunal on 29‑10‑1995 .

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. We find that the appellant did not file any appeal to the departmental Competent Authority and has tom up in appeal before us without exhausting departmental remedy. Thus, his appeal before the tribunal is not competent in view of bar by proviso (a) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Therefore, to appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

4. Even otherwise on merit the appellant has no case. A bare look at Civil Service Regulation 361, shows that an officer‑does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:‑‑ First: The service must be under Government. Second : The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third: The service must be paid by Government. Since the appellant does not fulfil the second condition of C.S.R: 361 and the Government in exercise of its powers under C.S.R. 361‑A, has not considered it fit to condone 2 days' break and count the ad hoc service of the appellant toward pensionary benefits etc. There appears to be no violation of the conditions laid down under the C.S.R.

361. As regards reference of the learned counsel for the appellant to C.S.R. 418‑B, the same applies only in the case of regular service and not to ad hoc service. The learned counsel for the appellant could not show any precedence where the break howsoever small, between ad hoc and regular service could be condoned for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. As such the appellant could derive no benefit out of C.S.R. 418‑B of the Civil Service Regulations. The appeal being incompetent and having no merit is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./44/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.