ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mr. Shan Muhammad, retired Kanungo has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Civil Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order of his retirement dated 17.1-1980 under section 12 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act. His representation against the said order dated 20-3-1980 had not been decided till the filing of this appeal on 29-9-1980.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and his re-instatement , in service on the grounds that-----
(i) his case was scrutinized in 1974 and he allowed to continue in service after completing 25 years' service ;
(ii) he was recommended for promotion shortly before his retirement ; and (i.e) he was, not heard before passing the impugned order.
The appellant made also a miscellaneous application, dated 13-6-1981, for amendment of his appeal, wherein he prayed that he was retired without completing 25 years of service, which was allowed by us.
3. We have heard the parties have gone through the appeal and have also examined the record produced before us. We find that the appellant has been retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, after completion of 25 years qualifying service for pension and other benefits by the competent authority. The appellant has failed to prove any ground of malice, against his superiors as well as the competent authority. From the perusal of the service book of the appellant produced before us, it is clear that the appellant joined substantively in the Govern-- ment service on 14-5-1948 and he was retired on 17-1-1980. Thus the total service comes to 31 years, 8 months and 3 days including the suspension period. This suspension period has been mentioned from 1961 to 1963 vide para. 3, of the miscellaneous application of the appellant dated 13-6-1981.
Thus, it is clear from the documentary proof produced before us that the appellant has earned much more than 25 years of qualifying service for pension and thus he was retired lawfully after completion of his 25 years' service. Now on this point, the law is settled according to which a civil servant who has completed his 25 years service qualifying for all pension benefits, retired by a competent authority in his case cannot agitate his claim against such retirement order as the said order is protected under Article 13 of the P.C.O., 1981.
4. Keeping in view the above analysis of this case, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.