' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Abdul Aziz Bhatti, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act in which he has impleaded the Punjab Province through the Secretary Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, as respondent. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondent be directed that he should allow the appellant to continue in service upto 23rd February, 1974 i. e. The age of 60 and grant him pro forma promotion under the next below rule.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Abdul Aziz Bhatti, was promoted from the post of the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, to the rank of the Deputy Director, with effect from 18th April, 1963. Subsequently he was reverted to the post of the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, with effect from 15th April, 1965. He also stood retired as such with effect from 31st July, 1967 on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits, vide Notification No, Lab- (I)-11 (15)/67, dated 28th July, 1967. Somehow or the other the said order was substituted and he was declared as compulsorily retired from the said office from the same date under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. The appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of a Civil Judge at Lahore in which he challenged his reversion from the post of Deputy Director Labour Welfare to the post of the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, with effect from 15th April, 1965. The said Court, vide judgment dated 15th September, 1979 declared such reversion as illegal and therefore, the respondent, in spite of the said order of the Court which stood confirmed in appeal, also retired the appellant as Deputy Director, Labour Welfare, with effect from 23rd February, 1969 on attaining the age of 55 years, vide Notification dated 10th May, 1980. The pension of the appellant was accordingly revised and he received the arrears on account of the said order.
However, the appellant is still aggrieved and claims that he should have been retired from service on attaining-the age of 60 years and the impugned order by which he has been retired as Deputy Director be set aside.
3. We have heard the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondent and the appellant who has appeared in person and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
The case of the appellant is positively without substance as he himself remained contented with the decree of the Civil Court, by which it was decreed that he would retire at the age of 55 years as Deputy Director, Labour Welfare, vide its judgment dated 15th September, 1979. This judgment was implemented after the Government lost the case in appeal and the appellant also did not file any appeal or object as against the said judgment to contest that the age of retirement should' have been 60 years and not 55 years in his case. According to S & GAD Circular Letter No, SOR-1 (S&GAD)
4-1/72 (Policy) (Annexure 'E') on the record, a civil servant can be retired at the age of 60 years if he is in service on 22nd November, 1976. In the case of the appellant as he retired much earlier, therefore, he would not be eligible to the benefit of this letter of the Government. The case of the appellant stood far closed by the judgment of a Court t which no exception was taken by him.
Therefore, his grievance so ventilated through this appeal is nothing but an exercise in futility.
4. In view of the above discussion this appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.