1984 PLP 884 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner, a civil servant who has been compulsorily retired from service, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 13‑2‑1982 under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution whereby a service appeal against such compulsory retirement was dismissed. The petitioner was sent on deputation from the Government of Punjab, the employer, to serve the Government of Saudi Arabia in the Ministry of Defence and Aviation. The period of deputation expired on 6‑6‑1976. On his failure to report back he was proceeded against under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and getting no response from him he was retired order dated 27‑11‑1978 with effect from 6‑6‑1976. On return to Pakistan in 1979 he challenged the compulsory retirement by a review petition and thereafter by an appeal to the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal found no merit and dismis sed his service appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Governor dated 27‑11‑1978 could not have retrospective effect from 6th June, 1976, that proper inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules was not held at all as he was not served with the notice that issued, and that there was good ground for extending the period of deputation as a move to that effect had been made by the Saudi Arabian Government herself. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the refusal of the Government of Punjab to extend the period of deputation was not communicated to the petitioner and other officers similarly placed were dealt with differently and more favourably. The deputation order communicated to the petitioner on 5th of June, 1971 provided Condition No. 6 in the following words‑- "Government will have the option to ask the officer to return to duty on the expiry of five years or to quit service if he is unwilling to return to home country. A letter was addressed to the petitioner on the 2nd of April, 1976 at the address supplied by him informing him of the requirement of Condition No. 6 of the deputation order and giving him a direction to report to the department before the 6th June, 1976. Another letter was then addressed to him on 7th of June, 1976 and be was advised that if he wanted extension the Saudi Arabian Government had to ask for it and the Punjab Government had to agree to it. He was then informed on 26th of August, 1976 and directed to report for duty as the deputation period had expired. It appears that it was on the 12th of September, 1976 that the petitioner himself applied to the Pakistan Ambassador in Jeddah for seeking the extension of deputation period enclosing with his application an undated certificate issued by the Director, Facilities Engineering, King Faisal Military Cantt Ministry of Defence and Aviation, Government of Saudi Arabia and addressed to "whom it may con cern", and indicating that the officer was required on the project in band. The Tribunal held that the communications were addressed by the Government of the Punjab at the correct address disclosed by the petitioner, that he would be deemed to be properly served, that there was no move by the Saudi Arabian Government as such for the extension of the period of deputation, and that, in any case, the Punjab Government did not extend the period of deputation and the policy letters that issued were not in terms applicable to the case of the petitioner. As regards the legal points, we find that the terms of the deputation order themselves permitted the termination of service from the date there was abandonment of the job. It was so from the 6th of June, 1976. In fact, the petitioner has been beneficially treated as instead of termination his service he has been compulsorily retired giving him the proportionate benefits of the service rendered by him. There is no question of retrospectively and if the petitioner considered it a retrospective order was called upon him to exercise his option whether he would, after his period of deputation expired, be willing to surrender the emoluments that he received from the foreign government if he wanted to be continued till the date the older of his compulsory retirement was passed. Obviously he wanted to surrender what the Punjab Government was to pay to him for keeping him in service and retain what the foreign government gave. That would amount to extending the period of deputation till the order of compulsory retirement was passed which only the Punjab Government could do but has not done. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that the policy letters which issued in 1978 have no application to the case of the petitioner as Condition No. 6 of the deputation order had already been enforced against him when these letters came to be issued. We have examined the order placed by the petitioner with regard to the other case and find that it proceeds on different facts. There is a finding of fact recorded that the appellant in that case could not report for duty because he was under foreign land laws which did not permit him to leave the country without its prior permission among other grounds. We find no merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused. S. Q. Leave refused.