K. E. CHAUHAN, J.--The petitioner who, at the relevant time, was posted as an Assistant Superintendent, Camp Jail, Lahore, was to attain the age of 55 years on 12-12-1968. Much prior thereto, a policy letter had been issued on 22-7-1967, authorising the grant of extension to civil servants. In pursuance of that policy letter, the services of the petitioner, by means of a formal order, dated 29-6-1968, were extended up to the 30th of September 1969. Later on, certain other policy letters were issued on 11-2-1969, 23-6-1969 and 30-9-69, which explained the procedure for granting further extension (beyond 30th of September 1969). In pursuance of the procedure aforesaid, the case of the petitioner was taken up by the District Advisory Committee which after hearing him decided on 26-8-1969, that no further extension should be given to him. The petitioner at that time on 16-9-1969, applied that in case no extension was to be given to him, he should be granted leave preparatory to retirement (i. e., L. P. R.). His request was accepted and he was given one year's L. P. R. on 25-9-1969. However, being dissatisfied from the refusal of the Government to grant him a further extension the petitioner has come up in writ petition to this Court.
2. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that if letters of the Government dated 22-7-1967, 11-2-1969, 23-6-1969 and 30-9-1969 are read together, they will show that after the expiry of the first period of extension of service, the petitioner was to get another, what he termed, an "automatic extension" up to 58 years. His submission was that the refusal of the Government to grant this "automatic extension" to him was without lawful authority. The contention has no force. It was held in Lt.-Col. Farzand Ali and others v. Province of West Pakistan , that no civil servant had vested right to claim extension in his service beyond the normal period of superannuation. The other case on the subject is S. Gulzar Hussain Bokhari v. Government of West1 Pakistan and another , where too similar view was taken. In the face of the aforesaid position of law on the subject, the petitioner has no right to claim extension of service and any pursuit of the same through this writ petition or otherwise cannot bring any fruit to him.
3. Attending to the plea of the petitioner, however, that his case was not to be referred to the District Advisory Committee, there again we cannot agree with him. It is not necessary for us to reproduce all the aforesaid lengthy letters in this judgment and it will be sufficient for our purpose to state that examined (i) either from the point of view of granting an extension or (ii) from the point of view of putting a person on an "automatic extension", in both the eventualities, the extension was subject to scrutiny on the points of (a) corruption; (b) ill-health and (c) inefficiency. In the instant case by means of letter (Copy Annex `L'), dated 10-6-69, the Director of Prisons, referred the case of the petitioner to the Chairman, District Advisory Committee. Thids letter reads as follows:-- "From The Director of Prisons, Central Range, Bahawalpur.
To The Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, District Advisory Committee, Lahore.
No, 16080/0I, dated Bahawalpur the 10-6-69.
Subject; Retirement of Non-Gazetted Government Servants at the age of 55 years under Article 178 of the Constitution. Reference para. 2 of the Chief Secretary to Government of West Pakistan letter No, SOIV (S & GAD) 4-7/66 (Policy) dated 11-2-69 the case of Sh. Muhammad Ishtiaq, Assistant Superintendent, Camp Jail, Lahore is sent herewith for advice. He is not fit for the Executive job. He does not know/Foot drill. He has also not passed the departmental examination. His record of service is unsatisfactory and does not warrant further retention in service. Therefore, he is recommended for retirement. The advice of the Committee may please be conveyed t o this office immediately for further action. His Character Rolls 104 pages alongwith pro forma and resume of adverse remarks are sent herewith. (Sd.) Director of Prisons, Central Range, Bahawalpur."
The resume of adverse remarks alluded to in the above letter is Annex "L/1", and reads as follows:-- "Resume of adverse remarks and punishments to Sh. Muhammad Ishtiaq Assistant Superintendent Jail.
Sr. No.Year Page of Character Roll fileResume of adverse remarks and punishments
1. 1940 24 Reprimanded by I.-G. Prisons, Punjab for showing in Register No, 28 to have despatched a reduction warrant to the wrong addressee. Actually not posting2 the warrant even to the wrong addressee.
2. 1943 36 Warned for drawing leave salary for payment to M. Noor Muhammad in excess of the amount admissible.
3. 1958 65 Cautioned for approaching higher authorities for cancellation of his transfer orders.
4. 1961 76 Warned by I.-G. Prisons.
5. 1964 85 Remarks by Director of Prisons Not reliable requires close supervision.
6. 1968 102 A very experienced Clerk but in executive work need strict supervision. (Sd.) Director of Prisons, Central Range, Bahawalpur."
Thereupon the District Advisory Committee sent up the following report on 26-8-1969, after hearing the petitioner:"The remaining 31 cases were examined by the Committee in the light of the instructions contained in Chief Secretary to Government of West Pakistan Services and General Administration Department Circular Memo. No, SO1V (S & GAD) 4-7/66 dated 23-6-1969.
According to the policy laid down therein extension is to be granted only to a Government servant who is considered to be extraordinarily competent, honest and who had a particularly good and meritorious record of service. The officials/peon concerned were also heard personally and the reasons advanced by them for the grant of extension in service were taken into consideration. The physical fitness and the period of extension already availed of was also taken in view while deciding each case."
3. The Committee decided that the following Government servants should be recommended for retirement on attaining the age of 55 years or on the expiry of the period of extension already granted up to 30-9-1969, as the case be.
"S. No, Name Designation of the officialName of Department
1. Muhammad Assistant Ishtiaq.Assistant Superintendent, Camp Jail, Lahore.Director of Prisons, Central Range, Bahawalpur."
It was after this that the petitioner filed an application volunteering to proceed on L. P. R. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report of the District Advisory Committee did not deal with the matters of corruption, ill-health or efficiency of the petitioner and therefore, its recommendations were vitiated. This is not correct. The District Advisory Committee did attend to those aspects as the wording of its report shows. On our asking as to whether the resume of adverse remarks, as reproduced above were correct extracts of his record, he submitted that it was so. This will show that the District Advisory Committee committed no wrong if on the basis of the aforesaid record it did not favour the petitioner with another extension up to 58 years.
4. Another minor point raised was that the District Advisory Committee had not recorded any clear or specific finding against the petitioner and that its report was too general in nature. We cannot take any notice of this plea because it is not disputed that the entire service record of the petitioner, alongwith his Character Roll and resume of adverse remarks was before the authorities and it was after taking the same into consideration and hearing him in that respect that his case was finalised.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition has no merits and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
6. Before parting with the case, we may make it clear that we have treated the present case as one of granting a further extension, and not where such an extension had in fact been granted and acted upon. Nothing written herein, therefore, should be considered to apply to later types of cases, which will be dealt with as and when they come before the Court on their own incidents, facts and circumstances. PLD 1970 SC 98 PLD 1969 Lah. 98