' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 21-10-1981 passed in Case No. 1 of 1981.
2. Muhammad Afzal respondent S.D.O. Was retired on completion of 25 years' service on the ground of not being fit for continuing in the service vide order, dated 8-1-1980 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Provincial Building Circle, Sargodha. The respondent applied for one year leave with full pay which was allowed to him with effect from 9-1-1980 to 8-1-1981. He thereafter filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer against his order of retirement, after he had handed over the charge of his post. His appeal was dismissed by the Chief Engineer on 8-12-1980 on the advice of the Review Committee of the Chief Engineer's Office in a meeting held on 24-11-1980. The respondent then filed appeal No. 1/1981 before the Service Tribunal which was accepted vide order, dated 21-10-1981.
3. The appellants filed petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal dated 21-10-1981 on the ground that according to the Chief Engineer's order, dated 26-11- 1977 the respondent, alongwith two others, was simply ordered to be posted against certain posts of S.D.Os in their own pay and grade and the said order cannot prima facie be construed as an order of appointment to the posts of S.D.Os. According to the Government of Punjab Services and General Administration Department's Notification No,SOR .I(S&GA D)/ 15/1/70, dated the 14th October, 1975 whereby the West Pakistan Buildings and Highways Department Delegation of Power Rules, 1968 have been applied to the Province of Punjab, the Superintending Engineer/Director is the appointing and removing authority of the appointed of technical and ministerial posts in N.P.S. 5 to
15. The Sub-Engineers fall within the above category of employees and the Superintending Engineer in the competent authority of such employees.
4. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that respondent being a permanent Overseer (Sub-Engineer) his Controlling Authority was the Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned and the additional employment of the respondent as officiating S.D.O. Does not change his status or his Controlling Authority. Even otherwise under Government instructions and powers vested in the Controlling Officer under section 12(2) Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 directing review of efficiency of its servants every year after they have completed 25 years of service, review was legal and valid. Respondent having proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement, he cannot approbate and reprobate after enjoying the benefits of retirement. The aforesaid appointment order dated 26-11-1977 reads as follows: "The following Sub-Engineers of the Building Department are hereby posted against the Sub- Divisional Charges shown against each in their own pay and grade with effect in the interest of public service.
' Muhammad Afzal Muhammad Nawaz Iftikhar Ali
(2) The above posting are purely temporary arrangements and will confer any right for claiming promotion.
(3) The actual date of taking over charges should please be reported to this Office promptly."
' Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the order of retirement of the respondent. He applied for one year's leave and availed the benefits, therefore, he has no grouse to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal. Hence the order of the learned Tribunal, dated 21-10-1981 is set aside and this appeal is accepted with no order as to costs.