S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Malik Shabbir Ahmad Bhutta Naib-Tehsildar (Retd.) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondents,
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 24-12-1976 and final order dated 27-2-1982, be set aside and he may be re-instated in service with full benefits of pay, allowances, seniority etc. w.e.f. 24-12-1976.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was nominated for direct recruitment as a direct Kanungo by order dated 23-10-1948. He was placed under training as Kanungo candidate for two years i.e. From 17-1-1949 to 16-1-1951. Thereafter, he was placed as Patwari M3hal from 17-2-1951 to 31-5-1952 and the remaining 8 months training as Patwari Mahal was exempted. After completion of the said training appellant was appointed as fulfledged direct Kanungo w.e.f. 1-6-1952. The appellant was subsequently promoted as Naib-Tehsildar in the year 1960 and confirmed as such.
He cleared his Departmental Naib Tehsildari Examination in the year 1970 and Tehsildari Examination in the year 1976. The respondent No. 1 vide an order dated 24-12-1976, retired the appellant in public interest under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Ser--vants Act, 1974, on the ground that he had completed 25 years' service qualifying for pension and other benefits. The appellant filed a revision before the respondent No. 2 but the same was rejected. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was later on con--verted into a petition before the Review Board. The Review Board recommended the re-instatement but the recommendation was rejected by order dated 11-5-1978. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as, learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The only ground urged by the learned counsel before us is that original as well as final order was void ab initio because these were in contravention of section 12 (ii) as well as the P.C.O., 1981. Learned counsel has submitted that appellant had not completed 25 years of service which was pre--requisite for his retirement under section 12 (ii) as well as P. C. O., 1981.
5. We have carefully attended to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have taken care to look into the record of this case in order to find whether the appellant had completed 25 years of service on the date of passing of impugned order against him or not. In this context we have read a letter front Mian Wahid-ud-Din Rathore, Director, Land Records addressed to the Commissioner Multan dated 24-11-1981. This letter is actually in reply to the reference made by the Commissioner with regard to the crucial issue involved in this case. The Director, Land Records, Punjab replied to the Commissioner that the matter was very simple as para--graph 2.5 A (b) of the Land Records Manual requires that direct Kanungo candidates after receiving preliminary settlement training should work as Mahal Patwari for two years before their appointment as Kanungo, the post to which any candidate is selected for appointment. The Director Land Records went on further to say that paragraph 2.4 of the said Manual recognizes all this period of four years as training period, for it lays down that any candidate's name who declines to work in a settlement or in some post which affords a useful training for the post of Kanungo or fails to complete the revenue training within four years from the date of accept--ance, is liable to be removed from the list of Kanungo candidates. The Director, Land Records further stated this period of four years of revenue training includes two years as preliminary settlement training and two years as Mahal Patwarship. Thus, the whole period spent as settlement and Mahal Patwaris' service is not countable towards pension within the meaning of note below rule 2.6 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1955. This aspect of the case was further examined in the light of D. L. R. Clarification and the office note dated 12-1-1982 submitted to the Commissioner clearly indicated that the appellant had not completed 25 years' service qualifying for pension on 24-12-1976, the date of the impugned order. In this manner the plea of the appellant was fully confirmed. This case was further examined by the A. -C. (D) on 12-1-1982 and after giving the history of the entire service of the appellant, the conclusion drawn by the said officer was that according to the Service Book entries at page 3, it is established beyond any doubt that the appellant did not complete his 25 years' service on 24-12-1976. The said officer expressed without any ambiguity that the order of retirement dated 24-12-1976 was illegal and not maintainable. It seems the learned Commissioner in his order dated 17-2-1982, did not advert to the crucial issue but side tracked from the same taking shelter of Article 13 of the P. C. O. 1981.
6. We may make it very clear that both in the P.C.O., 1981 as well as under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 it is pre--requisite of the said enactments that a person who is to be retired under these laws, should have completed 25 years of service and the order with regard to the same must be made by the competent authority. When the' learned Commissioner was clearly informed that on the date the appellant was retired, he had not completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension, he should have accepted the review petition filed by the appellant as order so passed, was void ab initio.
7. We have no hesitation to hold, in view of the information based on the record by the D. L. R. As well as A. C. (D) that the retirement of the appellant was illegal, without any lawful authority and in fact was void ab initio as it ran counter to the very essentials of the P. C. O., 1981 and section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
8. In view of the above we proceed to accept the appeal of the appellant, set aside the impugned orders as void ab initio and direct that appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
9. However, there will, be no order as to costs.