M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).---In this case the appellant, Muhammad Nasir, has come up against the order of his retirement from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 effected vide order dated 30-12-1978. The appellant contends that he has not yet rendered 25 years continuous service qualifying for pension under the Provincial Government.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as temporary Assistant Rehabilitation Officer in the Rehabilitation Department on 24-12-1947. He continued to serve in the Department, firstly, as Assistant Rehabilitation Officer, then as Deputy Rehabilitation Officer and later as Rehabilitation Officer till 2-1-1960 when his services were terminated. He was without a job till 1-9-1965 when, on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, he was appointed as Excise and Taxation Officer in the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department. He did not chose to seek condonation of the bleak of 5J years which occurred between his service in the Rehabilitation Department and that in the Excise and Taxation Department.
3. The parties were heard. It is the contention of the appellant that his service in the Rehabilitation Department was not service with the Provincial Government and, therefore, cannot be construed to be a continuous service qualifying for pension. The case made out on behalf of the respondent- department is chat the gap in service from 2-1-1960 to 31-8-1965 is deemed to have been condoned vide Finance Department Circular Letter No. FD-SR-111-4-1/77 dated 14 April, 1977.
Therefore, the appellant has completed more than 25 years of continuous service and the Government have the authority to retire him under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.th
4. We have already held in Appeal No. 17 of 1980 In re : Munawar Ali Qureshi v. Punjab Government, and Appeal No. 16/532 of 1980, In re : Mansoor Azhar Faruqi v. Government of Punjab that service under the Central Govern--ment cannot be counted towards pension from the Provincial Government. We based our above judgments upon the provisions of rule 2'1 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules which require that in order to qualify for pension a Government servant must have served under the Government, the service must be pensionable and the servant must be paid by Government from the Provincial Consolidated Fund. In this case, the appellant's service with the Rehabilitation Department was patently service under the Central Government. Nothing was produced to show that the concurrence of the Federal Government had been obtained to accept the liability for pension for the period appellant served under that Government. The representative of the District Accounts Officer, Sahiwal, who appeared before us has stated that the requisite certificate of 25 years qualifying service was neither obtained from nor issued by the Audit Office concerned, i.e. The District Accounts officer, Sahiwal.
In view of the above we hold that the appellant had not completed 25 years qualifying service for pension on 31-12-1978 when the impugned order was issued. That order is, therefore, unlawful and must be struck down. Consequently the appeal is accepted with no orders as to costs.