DECISION ' The appellant, who was lastly working in the Pakistan Western Rail ay as Investigator (Development) was retired from service on completing sixty years of age. He challenged his retirement by way of a grievance petition under section 25-A,
1. R.
0., filed before the learned Vth Labour Court. The grounds on which be sought to challenge the orders of his retirement were firstly, that the retirement orders were illegal as they were passed by the Divisional Commercial Officer who was not the competent officer to retire him, secondly, that he was not offered nor allowed the L. P. R. Due to him, thirdly, that he had not, in fact, attained the age of sixty years, as he was only 53 years of age, and lastly, that he was still physically fit to perform his duties. The learned Labour Court repelled all the above contentions of the appellant and dismissed his grievance petition. The first contention was repelled by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the appellant having already been retired from service and relieved he was not entitled to file a grievance petition. It was further held by the learned Labour Court that the expression "competent authority" with reference to retirement of a railway employee had been defined as an appointing authority or a person duly authorised by the appointing authority in that behalf, not being lower in the rank to the railway servant concerned and since the Divisional Commercial Officer was obviously not lower in rank to the appellant the former should be deemed to be a competent authority entitled to pass retirement orders in respect of the appellant. As regards the contention of the appellant that he had not been offered or allowed to avail of L. P. R.
The Learned Labour Court pointed out that according to the Rule 804 of the Railway Service Rules, it is for the retiring servant to apply for leave preparatory to retirement before the date of his retirement and as the appellant had admittedly not submitted such an application he cannot now complain if he was not granted nor has availed of L. P. R. With regard to the contention of the appellant that his age as shown in the railway record is incorrect and that in fact he is only fifty- three years of age the learned Labour Court pointed out that the date of birth of the appellant shown in his service sheet is 7th September, 1919. In that service sheet the appellant himself over his own signature has recorded the following certificate :- "I certify that the date of birth shown above namely, 7th September, 1919 is correct."
' The above certificate was recorded on 1st February, 1946 and it has not been controverted nor any evidence to the contrary been led by appellant.
2. The final contention of the appellant that he was physically fit to continue to perform his duties also did not find favour with the learned Labour Court since the age of retirement has been fixed by the ' Federal Government as sixty years and the appellant had been retired in accordance with the orders of the Government.
3. The sole ground on which Mr. Saleem Raza, the learned representative of the appellant, sought to assail the impugned decision was that the orders of retirement in respect of the appellant were passed by the Divisional Commercial Officer who was not competent under the rules to retire the appellant. The order on which Mr. Saleem Raza sought to rely is dated 3rd December, 1979 and it reads as follows :- "To ' The D. P.
0., Karachi, ' Quote Ref. No, KDC/101-R & D/77/Staff ' Dated 3.12.1979 Retirement of Coml. Staff ' Ref : Your letter No, 729 B/8/1806/PT ' Dated 2-12-1979 ' Mr. Muhammad Shamsuzaman Khan SCA/G locally officiating as Investigator (Dev) has been relieved on retirement w. e. f. 3-12-1979 f. n. Vide your above-cited letter. His date of birth is 7-9-1919.
' Sd/- ' Divisional Commercial Officer (Dev) Karachi ' Copy to Mr. Muhammad Shamsuzaman Khan Investigator (D)."
' A bare perusal of the above order shows that the said order merely recalls the fact that the appellant stood relieved on retirement with effect from 3rd December, 1979 and cannot be construed as an order of retirement. The appellant in fact stood retired in view of the Instructions contained in the letter No, E-77-RT-1-1I, dated 29th January, 1977, from Secretary, Railway Board, Lahore to the Chief Administrative Officer and the F. A. & C. A.
0., Pakistan Railways, Lahore. According to the said Instructions a railway servant will stand retired on completion of sixty years of age, except where a competent authority has otherwise directed. In the instant case, admittedly, no order to the contrary has been issued by the competent authority.
As such the appellant automatically stood retired on completing his sixty years of age. It was no necessary at all for the competent authority to issue an order for his retirement. It was only in those cases where the competent authority had decided to retire a person either on completion of twenty-five year of service, qualifying for pension, or on a date other than the one on which the railway employee is to complete sixty years of age, that the competent authority is required to pass orders.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.