' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- This petition is directed against the order, dated 3-6-2003 passed by Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing petitioner's appeal against an order, dated 18-12-2002 passed by Administration Manager Flight Services, P.I.A.C.
Directing retirement of the petitioner, an Officer in Pay Group-V performing ground duties, on completion of 25 years of service w,e,f, 1-7-2001.
2. Petitioner was earlier serving in P.I.A.C. In Pay Group-V as Crew Welfare Officer. On account of her domestic problems she requested for ground job which was acceded to by the management vide office order, dated 13-4-2000 whereby she was adjusted against an available position in Pay Group-V without any change of title with the understanding that she will have an equal opportunity to compete along with others whenever posts of ground position employee are advertised.
3. Earlier, the petitioner, while serving as Crew Welfare Officer in P.I.A.C. Had challenged order, dated 7-9-2000 in Service Appeal No,707-K of 2000 before the Tribunal whereby Corporation had accepted for resignation from service with immediate effect subject to recovery of three months salary in lieu of notice period. Her appeal was hotly contested by the management but upon consideration of entire aspects and background of the appeal leading to the acceptance of resignation, said order was set aside and appeal was allowed. She was ordered to be reinstated from the date of her resignation vide judgment, dated 3-9-2002.
4. It may be pertinent to note that the Tribunal acting under a wrong impression as if the petitioner was a civil servant in the service of Federal Government in the said judgment observed that appellant would have otherwise retired on completion of qualifying service of 25 years and therefore period of 8 months may be treated as leave of the kind due and she be given retirement benefits admissible under the law. Since the petitioner was satisfied with order of her reinstatement in service, she bona fide and in good faith did npt challenge the observation of the Tribunal which was totally uncalled for, Out of context and founded on erroneous assumption of legal position. On its part P.I.A.C. Management vide office order, dated 18-12-2002 reinstated her in compliance with judgment of the Tribunal and by the same order after adjusting the periods of her leave w,e,f, the date of earlier judgment of the Tribunal ordered her retirement w,e,f, 1-7-2001 without referring to any rule or regulation of P.I.A.C. Service Regulations. From the order impugned it appears that the Corporation took undue advantage of the erroneous observation of the Tribunal in order to deprive the petitioner of her due rights at their whims and without any legal justification.
5. The petitioner who argued her case in person forcefully contended that her service in the respondent-Organization was governed by P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 which do not contain any provision authorizing the management to retire an employee from service on completion of 25 years of service at its whims and in arbitrary exercise of discretion except the Air Hostesses. Regulation 25 of the above Regulations stipulates that an employee shall retire from service of the Corporation in accordance with the 'retirement regulations framed from time to time. Regulation 25(2)(a) lays down that unless otherwise regulated by the competent authority all employees other than Air Hostesses shall retire from service of the Corporation on completion of the 60th year of age. The petitioner who by reason of her long service and experience in P.I.A.C. Appears to be well versed with the service regulations and the practice prevailing in the respondent-Corporation, referred to Regulation 26 which enables an employee of the Corporation to seek retirement on completion, of 25 years continuous . Service or fifty fifth year of age with such benefits as may be admissible to him on retirement from service. There is no corresponding provision in the Regulations which are otherwise meant for internal management and administration of the respondent-Corporation authorizing the management to order retirement of an employee on completion of 25 years of qualifying service.
6. Confronted with this position, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation was unable to controvert the above said position of law but he contended that there was an arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation during the course of hearing of earlier appeal of the petitioner in which the Tribunal had permitted the management to retire the petitioner on completion of 25 years of qualifying service after adjustment of leave due to her. We indeed feel, this does not appear to be a correct statement of fact because it is not spelt out from the language used in the judgment which was pronounced after eight days of hearing of the appeal and in all probability dictated in Chambers.
7. Even otherwise such arrangement, if at all any, being not consistent with the Regulations framed by the respondent-Corporation for its day to day management and administration would not deprive an employee of his right otherwise secured and guaranteed by law as well as the departmental rules and regulations. It may be pertinent to observe that the P.I.A.C. Regulations are not statutory in nature yet once these have been framed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation these are binding for all intents and purposes on the respondent-Corporation who cannot arbitrarily deviate from such instructions and unilaterally violate the regulations which are in the nature of a contract, binding on the parties. Respondent was, thus, not competent in law to direct premature retirement of the petitioner on completion of 25 years of her service. The respondent-Corporation is, therefore, guilty of gross violation of the express terms and conditions of contract of employment. Since service Regulations do not permit the respondent-Corporation to retire an employee at its whims, except retirement of Air Hostesses on completion of 25 years, we do not think that the Administration Manager of the respondent-Corporation was justified in issuing the impugned order in colourable exercise of powers vested in him. In our view, impugned order on the face of it seems to have been passed on extraneous considerations and nor bona fide, therefore, we do not feel any hesitation in striking down the same and declaring it to have been passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect.
8. There is another aspect of the case. Even under the service regulations Administration Manager Flight Operations who himself is an employee in Pay Group-IX is not competent to terminate the services of an employee working in Pay Group-V. On our query we are informed by Mr. Mehmood Alam, Advocate High Court who served in P.I.A.C. For a pretty long time as General Manager Legal Services that it is the Director Administration who is competent to terminate the employment of employees up to Pay Group-VII. The order impugned does not tend to reflect whether it was issued after obtaining approval of the said authority and purports to have been issued by the officer signing the same I a the exercise of his own powers. This Officer was otherwise not compe tent to terminate the services of the petitioner.
9. It may be pertinent to observe that respondent-Corporation was directed vide order, dated 16- 4-2004 to submit comments on the petition within three weeks but obviously same have not been filed till this day without any legal or factual justification. Learned counsel for the D respondetd- Corporation is not able to show us from the record whether the actual order of termination was passed by the competent authority. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be struck down on this ground as well.
10. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons we convert this petition into appeal, allow the same, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well the order, dated 18-12-2002 and direct reinstat ment of the petitioner from the date of her termination with all back-benefits within a period of 30 days from today. A copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation by name so that he is apprised of the situation prevailing in the Corporation and for taking appropriate remedial measures that may be warranted in the interest of smooth and transparent administration.