ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J:- Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of this petition as well as connected Writ Petitions No. 1382-P/2015 (Fazal Dad Vs Federation of Pakistan and others), No. 1659/2015 (Yaseen Khan Vs Federation of Pakistan and others), No. 1385/2015 (Muslim Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others) and COC No. 240-P/2014 in W.P No. 1930-P/2014 (Said Khan Vs Federation of Pakistan and others), as all involvecommon question of law and fact and in all these writ petitions, petitioners namely Abdul Jabbar, Fazal Dad, Yaseen Khan, Muslim Khan and Said Khan respectively have asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ for declaration to the effect that the acts/orders of the respondent, whereby they have been retired from the service much prior to their actual dates and have also been refused promotion and have not been treated in accordance with law, are nullity in the eye of law and of no effect whatsoever. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petitions No. 2868/2010, 1956-P, 3039-P, 3054-P/2012, 1930-P, 2351-P, 2472-P, 2588-P, 2589-P, 2883-P, 3090-P/2014 and 57-P/2015 before this court wherein the Secretary (Law & Order)
FATA Secretariat was directed to decide the cases within one month according to relevant rules.
The appellate Authority/Secretary Law & Order vide order dated 15.4.2015 dismissed the appeals.
Hence these petitions.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record would reveal that the petitioners being employee of the respondent department have brought a grievance to the effect that they have been retired from their service prematurely, much prior from actual date of retirement, by misinterpreting the terms and conditions governed under rules sanctioned by the governor of the province in the year 1950. According to rule ibid the enlistment in the service shall ordinarily be made from rank of Khassadar and shall be subsequently promoted to the higher rank on the basis of seniority, efficiency, personal merit and political consideration. Rule-3 of the Rules ibid provide that Khassadar and non-commission officer (L/Naiks, Naiks and Hawaldar including Pay Hawaldar) will be retired on attaining age of 50 years or on completion of 25 years service whichever is earlier. Likewise, under rule-4, the Jamadar and Subidar will be retired on attaining age of 55 years or on completion of 30 years service whichever is earlier, however, in rule-5 it was added that promotion to the post of Jamadar and Subidar will be only for 5 years and 3 years respectively, except in special case in which the local administration may permit a Subidar to exceed the limit. Rule-5 ibid further provides that they are not liable to retire earlier in accordance with the provisions of Rule-(4). On the same analogy the tenure of office of Subidar Major was kept limited up to 5 years, subject to provision that the local administration may exceed the period in special cases.
3. A glance over the aforesaid rules would make it abundantly clear that Rule-3 and 4 provide the age of superannuation for all Khassadar/non- commission officer and Jamadar/Subidar as 50 and 55 years respectively, while rule-5 provide specific period for rendering service against the post of Jamadar and Subidar i.e. 5 years and 3 years respectively. Rule-4 and 5 shall be read independently from each other, wherein the former provides a term of retirement of the employees serving in the rank of Jamadar and Subidar while the latter stipulates a specific period of posting against the post of Jamadar and Subidar, which has got no nexus with the retirement of the employees in the above mentioned rank. The respondent department in general, while the Appellate Authority i.e. Secretary (Law & Order) FATA in particular has misinterpreted the rules 4 and 5, by amalgamating it. Rule-4 cater the length of service for retirement of employee, according to which the Jamadar and Subidar will retire from the service either at the age of 55 years or completion of 30 years service whichever is earlier. The above quoted period shall not be reduced or withdrawn by taking shelter of Rule-5 which is meant for posting against the post of Subidar and Jamadar for a specific 3 years and 5 years respectively.
In the case in hand, none of the petitioners has attained the age of superannuation i.e. 55 years or completed 30 years service but the respondent department have prematurely retired them by misinterpreting the provision of Rule-5. While interpreting the Rules made by the competent authority, it is to be read by giving words used by the Rules making authority its ordinary, plain, simple and grammatical meaning; the meaning which may render any position of it, ineffective has to be avoided as it would be against the settled principles of interpretation. The unambiguous language used in the Rules should not be construed in manner to defeat its object and deprive an employee of his legal vested right.
Addition or subtraction in the words used by the Rule making authority is not considered desirable while interpreting the Rules, as assignment of different meanings may defeat the object for which the Rules are enacted.
Under Rule 4 of the Rules ibid, the benefit of completing the service tenure is to be extended to the petitioners and they may not be deprived of the fruits of Rule 4. The retirement of any employee before reaching age of superannuation would amount to major punishment without any fault on the part of employee, which shall definitely effect their post retirement benefits.
4. We have gone through the order of the Appellate Authority dated 8.4.2015 wherein completion of 5 years service against the post of Naib Subidar has unnecessarily stretched to defeat its object and elongated in violation of Rule-4, which clearly provides the age of retirement. If the interpretation rendered by appellate authority is approved or recognized, it shall make the Rule 4 as redundant, which has never remained the intention of Legislature or Rule making authority. It is settled law that the redundancy could not be attributed to any provision of statute, unless it did not fit in the whole scheme of statute.The principle of harmonious construction requires that the provision of statute should be construed and interpreted in such a way that another provision of the same statute dovetail in each other in such a way that the entire statute remain a well-knit, integrated and workable peace of legislature. At this juncture we would like to emphasize that Rule 5 is not inserted in the Rules 1950 for rendering the Rule-4 as redundant. Both the rules independently described different terms and conditions of service of employee and none of the rule have got overriding effect of the other rules, as the former regulate the course and manner of retirement, while the latter prescribe tenure for service against the post of Subidar and Jamadar.
The learned counsel for respondent contended that after issuance of Khasadar Service Rules/Procedure 2006, further amended by 2011, all the previous rules and procedure made by different political agents in their respective agencies, F.R, including Rules of Service for Khyber Khassadars, 1950 stand repealed and at present the services of petitioners are regulated by Khasadar Force Rules 2006 amended in 2011. Despite our persistent queries the learned counsel for respondent failed to produce any gazetted Notified Rules, whereby the rules of service in Khyber Khasadar Force 1950 has been repealed. However, he produced a blueprint issued from Civil Secretariat, FATA Peshawar, by quoting and citing it as service rules for Khassadar in FATA, exactly is verbatim transcription of the Rules of Service of Khassadar Force, 1950. According to the above mentioned draft, the retirement age of Subidar Major, Subidar and Naib Subidar shall be 55 years or on completion of 30 years service whichever is earlier. Similarly, the specific tenure of posting has been fixed for the incumbent, holding the rank of junior commission officer as under:- i. Subidar Major 5 years. ii. Subidar 5 years. iii. Naib Subidar 5 years.
No doubt the so called drafted rules provides that no extension in the afore mentioned tenure shall be granted under any circumstances, however it does not mean that on completion of the given tenure, the employee shall be shown the door of exit, rather the department may promote him to the next higher post/rank/position or may assign him the likewise duties in his pay and scale, because according to the above referred, alleged rules, the Subidar Major, Subidar and Naib Subidar shall retire on attaining the age of 55 years or on completion of 30 years service whichever is earlier.
5. For what has been discussed, it is clear than crystal that the petitioners have been appointed under the "Rule of Service of Khyber Khassadar Force, 1950", which is still holding the field and their services are governed under the same rule which provide that the Jamadar and Sobidar will retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years or on completion of 30 years service whichever is earlier. They have considerable length of service on their credit and required to complete the entire spell of service as provided by the rules. The order of premature retirement is the result of misinterpretation and deviation from the existing rules of service for Khyber Khassadar Force, 1950, thus the same being erroneous in nature and based on self made hypothesis is liable to be set aside.
6. In wake of the above, the instant Writ Petition as well the connected Writ Petitions mentioned in para-1 are allowed. The order of premature retirement of petitioner is set aside with direction to the respondent to allow the petitioners to complete their services tenure till attaining the age of superannuation, strictly in accordance with Rule-4 ibid. However, the intervening period between the termination and joining of service shall be treated as leave without pay. Likewise, the services of Said Khan S/O Habibur Rehman R/O Khyber Agency shall be treated at par with the other petitioners. The COC-P/ 240-P/2015 (Said Khan Vs Federation) is disposed of in above terms.