Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J.--The Secretary Interior Division; Government of Pakistan vide No,9/32/2000-Sceurity-I, dated 17.9.2003 notified, the retirement from service or Mian Abdul Salam, the then Deputy Director (Publicity), Directorate General Civil Defence, Islamabad. The retirement under section 13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 based on three-fold ground mainly culminated into the fact that the officer had out lived his utility for further retention in service.
2. The retirement aforesaid was challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal, which, on' 17.3.2007, reinstated him into service. Director General Civil Defence Islamabad seeks leave to appeal from the judgment aforesaid.
3.The reinstatement has been directed on the grounds; firstly, 'that Mian Abdul Salam had remained on extra ordinary leave which if deducted from the total service, the residue comes to be less than 25 years, not qualifying for retirement under section 13(1)(i) of Civil Servants Act, 1973. It was further held by the Tribunal that the service record of the respondent was never unsatisfactory to furnish a ground for retirement under the said section.
4. We have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel on either side and are constrained to observe that our views are altogether different from what is held by the learned Tribunal, on all the three points related to the question of extra ordinary leave, the service record of the respondent and the completion of period of 25 years of service.
5. Be that as it may, one cannot fail to observe that the reinstatement of the respondent stood accepted by his competent authority/appointing authority or the Government, as such. Had it been so, the instant petition would have been filed by the. Secretary Interior who, in. view of Section 79-80 (1)(a) read with Order XXVII, Rule 3 CPC, happens to be the Government for the purposes of filing any petition, plaint or appeal, in addition to his being the competent authority as well as the appointing authority of the respondent. The petition in hand is filed by Director General Civil Defence who is neither the Government nor the appointing authority. The authority/Government was even not made a party to the present petition despite the fact that in appeal before the Tribunal, Secretary Interior Division and Secretary Establishment Division were arrayed as respondents. The case, well argued by the learned Deputy Attorney General, seems to have fizzled out because of the non-maintainability of the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed as non- maintainable and leave to appeal declined.