{{PAGE MISS IN BOOK}} has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order of his termination conveyed to him by the A.C. Sadar Sub-Division, Sheikhupura dated 16th February 1976 on the strength of order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 12th December, 1979 by which a proposal for relaxation of age limit was considered and rejected. By virtue of his appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and his appeal be accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- ' Mr. Muhammad Yaqub the appellant was recruited as temporary Patwari in the Settlement Operation in Sheikhupura District on 29th June, 1967. He kept on working in various capacities upto the date of termination of his service and thus has put in 13 years continuous service. It so happened that at the time of initial recruitment his age limit was not relaxed by the competent authority therefore when this impediment came to light the Commissioner Lahore Division vide his detailed judgment on an appeal by Muhammad Yaqub appellant dated 26th May, 1979 concluded that his upper age limit for adjustment as Patwari be relaxed. However, the Board of Revenue did not agree with his recommendations and the appellant was informed that his services should be terminated.
3. We have heard the appellant in person and have perused the record of this case carefully in order to satisfy ourselves for the justification of his prayer i,e, that he was a fit person for relaxation of age vis-a-vis commendable record. It would be useful to reproduce rule 3.9 of Civil Services Rules Punjab, Vol. I, Part I which runs as follows :- "3.9. Except where otherwise expressly provided in the Service Rules, the restriction in rule 3.7 may be waived in special circumstances by Heads of Departments in the case of non-gazetted Government Servants.
Exception 1--Commissioners of Divisions are competent to waive the age limit in respect of all district establishment included in the Punjab District Subordinate Service Rules, irrespective of the fact whether they are Heads of Departments for the same or not.
Exception 2: Exception 3 : Exception 4 : ' We further find that this position of law has been admitted in the parawise comments filed by Respondent but it has been added that application of 3.9 was not attracted in the case of the appellant. To gain assistance so as to arrive at a conclusion for the sake of justice we have carefully perused the judgment of the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division in which it has been observed that the appellant had served the Department since 1967 when he was below 30 years of age and his services have always been favourably commended upon by his superiors. It is also being mentioned that he was awarded Rs, 500 in view of his services in reconstructing the record of Tehsil office Sheikhupura which was burnt. A commenable certificate was issued by the D. C. To appreciate his performances. The learned Commissioner has further observed that the appellant officiated for two years successfully. Taking into consideration the commenable performance of the appellant the learned Commissioner strongly recommended that his age limit shculd be relaxed and the failure on the part of the authorities concerned to recommend his case for such relaxation on initial recruitment as Patwari was not due to the fault of the appellant. According to the learned Commissioner it was the office who first committed and then neglected all through final orders which resulted into the present situation. Keeping in view the excellent service record of the appellant, strong recommendations of the Commissioner and length of service so rendered by him we are of the considered opinion that one line order of rejection cannot be considered in any way justified. The Commissioner of the Division itself was the competent authority to relax the age limit according to rule 3.9 and if the office somehow or the other omitted to secure this relaxation as the initial stage and then kept sleeping over it for number of years, it would be a case of great hardship Tanta mounting injustice if such commissions are allowed to be perpetuated to the termination of the appellant which has been thrown out on the road after serving the Department successfully and meticulously for 12/13 years of his life.
' In view of above we recommend the case to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, to reconsider the case of relaxation in favour of the appellant in view of or above mentioned well considered observations.