' Farzand Haider Shah, ex-Kanungo has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded D. C./Collector, Lahore and Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of his appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders of his retirement under clause (ii) of section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 be set aside being premature.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-- ' The appellant was working as Kanungo in District Lahore when he received the impugned order in which it was stated that he has been retired after qualifying for per son and other retirement benefits on completion of 25 years of service. He preferred a representation before the Commissioner, Lahore Division which was rejected.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department (Mansoob Hasan Bill Clerk and Muhammad Aslam Sadar Kanungo) and have perused the record of this case with their assistance. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant served in the Central Record Room from 5th December, 1949 to 18th January, 1956. Thus the period of six years, one month and 17 days would not be counted towards his service qualifying for pension under rule 2.1 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963. It has been further subMitted that he remained on the list of Kanungo candidates for the period from 4th October, 1955 to 19th December, 1959 and according to the learned counsel this period would also not be counted towards his pension. It has further been submitted that the appellant remained under suspension from 1st June, 1966 to 17th February, 1967 therefore the period of seven months and 17 days would also be excluded because he was not paid full salary although he was r-einstated. It was finally argued that by taking away this period the appellant's service would be less than 25 years for qualifying pension and other retirement benefits under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
4. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the period of candidature would be counted towards his qualifying service and thus this plea raised by the appellant was without any force. For this he has relied on rule 2.6 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963 wherein it has been given that the time spent by a Government Servant for approved training is to be counted in service qualifying for pension. The learned District Attorney has also controverted the arguments of the learned counsel with regard to the suspension period by submitting that the appellant was re-instated and was given his pay for that period. It was finally argued that the only period which could ultimately be excluded from the service of the appellant towards qualifying pension would be the period when he served in the Central Record Room and no other.
5. 1 have given my anxious thought to all the arguments so addressed before me by the two learned counsel and find that the parawise/ comments have raised no objection with regard to the period of six years, one month and 17 days during which the appellant served in the Central Record Room and thus the same would be excluded from his service for the purposes of qualifying pension and other benefits. With regard to the period of suspension the rules on this point are very clear that if the appellant has been paid full pay after re-instatement then of course this period could be counted towards this purpose but if the pay has been reduced by any fraction the same would not be counted towards service qualifying pension. I have looked into the parawise comments and find that this contention of the appellant has not been controverted by the Department, therefore, I am fortified to hold that he was given 1/3rd pay and not the full pay which would have not allowed the Department to count this period of service towards his pension benefits. Even if I leave controversial point from my purview the mere fact that Central Government period of six years, one month and 17 days still reduce the period of service to less than 25 years of service. This fact by itself would entitle the appellant to succeed in his appeal. The result is that I accept his appeal, hold his retirement as premature, set aside the impugned order and reinstate him in service with all the back benefits.