Imam Bakhsb, Forester, Bahawalpur Forest Division, Bahawalpur has filed this appeal in which he has impleaded the Secretary, Forestry and Wildlife Department and the Chief Conservator of Forests as respondents. This appeal has been filed by high under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may, be treated as the repatriated forest employee and should be allowed the benefit of seniority as well as the pay and all allowances on the basis of the L. P. C. Issued by the Sind Government.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed in Sind Province with effect from 25- 5-1963 and his services were terminated by the Sind Forest Department on 29-12-1969. After a lapse of about 21 months period from the termination of his services by the Sind Forest Department, the Government of the Punjab vide their endorsement No. SOIR-3 (28)/70, dated 25-9-1972 decided to absorb the appellant and alongwith other two Foresters from Sind i.e., Mr. Qasirim Ali and Muhammad Rafique as Foresters and placed their services at the disposal of the then Chief Conservator of Forests, Multan Region (Defunct). Imam Bakhsh joined duties in the Punjab Forest Department on 2-1.0-1972. The appellant has filed this appeal on account of decision given by this Tribunal in the case of Messrs Nazim Khan, Fazal Ahmad and Ghulam Ali, Forest Rangers.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has submitted that the case was identical to Nazim Khan etc. Decided by this Tribunal dated 7-9-1974 as well as in the case of Muhammad Rafique decided by this Tribunal on 5-4-1982 therefore the appellant be treated as repatriated from the Sind Government to the Province of Punjab and be treated accordingly.
5. We are afraid that we cannot accept the arguments of the learned counsel that the cases of Messrs Nazim Khan, Fazal Ahmad and Ghulam Ali were identical cases with the appellant. In the said case it was the Governor who had repatriated these officers of the Forest Department under his own orders but in the case of the appellant no such orders of the Governor are available. If there would have been such order in his favour as to bring at par the case of the appellant with the said case of Nizam Khan, etc. He would have produced the same. The Department is also taking some stand and has further pointed out that the appellant remained for two years out of service and was re-employed as fresh entrant therefore, his case cannot be considered at par with the case of Nazim Khan, etc.
6. With regard to the judgment of Muhammad Rafique so produced before us it would be sufficient to say that this judgment does not give me the data of the said Muhammad Rafique so as to know whether this case could be distinguished or be considered at par with the case of Nizam Khan, as said above in view of lack of data of Muhammad Rafique in the said judgment of this Tribunal. I am afraid I cannot allow the appellant the benefit of the same.
7. I am clear in my mind when I say that only those persons who were repatriated like the manner in which Nizam Khan was repatriated would be liable to the benefits of absorption and only not others who have been employed fresh after break of service, As a result of above analysis I do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly .
However, the parties will bear their own costs.