1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑ Maqsood Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, Director Land Records Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala and District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may be re‑instated in service and the impugned order passed of his retirement under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by the Director, Land Records Punjab, be set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by the Director Land Records Punjab, Lahore. The appellant straightway went to the High Court where he challenged his retirement as premature. The appellant was successful in getting stay order in his favour, from the said Court which later on dismissed his writ petition vide order dated 20th May, 1980. The appellant then came to the Tribunal on 19th August, 1981 and was successful in getting stay order from this Tribunal also. The appellant is continuing in service on the strength of the stay order so issued by this Tribunal. 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 perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the length of service recorded in Annex "A", shows that his service qualifying for pension was 19 years on 5th November, 1974 and since then he has added 5 years to that account as such according to the learned counsel the total service would not be more than 15 .years by any stretch of imagination. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that the action of retirement taken against the appellant was not by the competent authority as it is the Collector of the District only in the case of Kanungo, which would be deemed to be the competent authority and not Director Land Records. Learned counsel in this case has come up with further argument on this legal point. He has submitted that the period of service as Patwari candidate from 31st October, 1949 to 30th August, 1974 i.e. 4 years 9 months 29 days, as well as period from 4th October, 1961 to 11th February, 1963 i.e. 1 year 4 months 7 days for which he was not paid any salary, are liable to be excluded because these periods do count as qualifying service under the Pension Rules. He has relied on 1981 S C M R 122 and 1981 P L C (C. S.) 35. Learned counsel has further submitted that the post of Kanungo may be, by Delegation of Powers on the list of Director Land Records, but basically this post is always on the list of Collector. According to the learned counsel when there is conflict with the Delegation of Powers and the Service Rules, Service Rules will prevail. He has relied on 1981 P L C (C. S.) 657 . 7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that according to the record of the case the appellant has not been appointed as direct Kanungo but to the post of Patwari, therefore, his service as Patwari would be counted towards pension etc. He has further submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that his service as candidate Patwari cannot be counted towards his pension, is factually incorrect, as record of this case reveals that he was appointed as Patwari on 31st October, 1949. With regard to the argument of the learned counsel that by Delegation of Powers the basic status of the appellant did not change, he has submitted that this is flacious argument and it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of decision that Kanungo on the list of Director Land Records would be subject to his authority. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments made by both the parties and are of the considered opinion that the appellant has no case on merits. The appellant according to the record of his service, was initiated into service as Patwari and as direct Kanungo, therefore, his service as Patwari would count towards pension benefits etc. In this manner his retirement under section 12 (ii) remains justified as he ha completed his 25 years of service qualifying for pension benefits. 9. With regard to the legal objections that the authority to retire him under section 12 (ii) could have been the Collector and not the Director Land Records, we are afraid that this argument cannot accepted. This issue stands concluded by a number of judgments of this Tribunal given from time to time in which it has been held that Kanungo on the list Director Land Records will be under the authority for all purposes. In this manner the retirement order passed by the Director, Land Records cannot be called an order by the incompetent authority. 10. In view of the above we are of the confirmed view that the appellant has been retired after completion of 25 years as well as by the competent authority. In view of Article 13 of the PCO, 1981, no exception can be taken against such order by this Tribunal or any other Court of Law in the country. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal on merits as well as on law point. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.