' Abdur Rehman, respondent No, 4, was working as a Head Clerk in the Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, when he was retired from service, with effect from 17-9-1981, after having completed 25 years of service. He preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner against his retirement but the appeal was dismissed on 22-3-1982. He made a representation to the Government of the Punjab, but it was rejected on 22-5-1982 on the ground that it was not maintainable. On 28-12-1982, the Government of the Punjab wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad that his decision of 22-3-1982 was without lawful authority as he had no jurisdiction to pass the order in view of the deletion of rule 5-A of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Servants (Retirement) Rules, 1966. It was also pointed out that on account of the notification issued on 13-7- 1982, the appeal stood transferred to Commissioner, Faisalabad Division. The Commissioner Faisalabad then took up the appeal and disposed it of on 10-7-1983. It was found by the Commissioner that the retirement of Abdur Rehman was unjustified. He directed the Municipal Corporation to re-instate Abdur Rehman with full benefits. In the meantime Abdul Ghafoor petitioner, who was also working as Head Clerk, was promoted as Octroi Superintendent, Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad in the normal course. He felt aggrieved of the orders passed by the Commissioner as he was likely to be displaced after Abdur Rehman was re-instated because in the category of Head Clerks Abdur Rehman was senior to Abdul Ghafoor petitioner and could subsequently question the promotion of Abdul Ghafoor as Octroi Superintendent. Abdul Ghafoor has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and has contended that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the appeal on 22-3-1982 were in accordance with law and that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders on 10-7-1983.
2. Under the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Servants (Retirement) Rules, 1966, the retirement of the employees could be ordered after completion of 25 years service. Rule 5- A(2) provided for an appeal against the order of retirement to an authority to be specified by the Government. On 10-6-1975 these rules were amended and rules 5-A and 6 were deleted. On 21- 6-1980 the Government issued a notification under rule 5-A(2) of the above-mentioned rules and appointed the Deputy Commissioner of the district as appellate authority where the orders of retirement were passed by the Administrators/Chairmen of the Local Councils. On 13-7-1982 rule 4- A was added providing for an appeal against such retirements to such authorities as the Government may specify. It was also directed that the appeals pending with the Deputy Commissioners on 13-7-1982 shall stand transferred to the authorities specified by the Government. On 15-7-1982 it was decided that the appeals in cases of employees of Municipal Corporations will be heard by the Commissioners.
3. Abdur Rehman's appeal was obviously not pending on 13-7-1982 because it had already been disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner on 22-3-1982. There is, therefore, no question of transfer of this appeal to the Commissioner under the notification issued on 13-7-1982. The learned counsel for Abdur Rehman accepts this but argues that the Commissioner was only obeying the directions of the Government contained in their letter of 28-12-1982, which directions the Government could give under its supervisory functions under section 153 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. He has referred to the case of All Muhammad v. Muhammad Ramzan and others 1969 SC M It
46. As regards the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 22-3-1982, the learned counsel for Abdur Rehman respondent No, 4, has submitted that the notification of 21-6-1980 constituting Deputy Commissioners as appellate authority was of no legal effect because it was issued under rule 5-A(2) which had been deleted five years earlier.
4. The facts narrated above show that the Commissioner became an appellate authority for the first time in July, 1982 under Rule 4-A added on 13-7-1982. Under this rule an appeal could be preferred within 30 days of the order of retirement. The petitioner retired on 17-9-1981. Abdur Rehman did not appeal to the Commissioner directly, nor could he do so after the expiry of ten months. This was actually an appeal transferred to the Commissioner from the Deputy Commissioner, by orders of the Government of 28-12-1982. This was, however, not possible, as only pending appeals could be transferred to the Commissioner while Abdur Rehman's appeal stood disposed of on 22-3-1982. The impugned orders of the Commissioner, dated 18-7-1983 were therefore, passed without lawful authority. In order to meet this difficulty the learned counsel for Abdur Rehman has submitted that orders of 28-12-1982 were passed under the supervisory powers of the Government under section 154 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979. While it is correct that the Government does enjoy these powers, the letter does not give the impression that this power has been exercised. This letter does not ask the Commissioner to look into Abdur Rehman's appeal as a special case, but merely observes that under notification of 13-7-1982, the appeal stands transferred to the Commissioner. This observation was incorrect as the appeal had been disposed of long ago. The argument relating to the supervisory functions of the Government, therefore, cannot be pressed into service in favour of Abdur Rehman. On the contrary it supports the vires of the notification of 21-6-1980 under which the Deputy Commissioners were constituted as appellate authorities. Under the supervisory functions, the Government was competent to constitute appellate authorities, even in the absence of rule 5-A particularly when the Government itself was the rule-making authority. The orders of the Deputy Commissioner of 22-3-1982 were, therefore, clothed with lawful authority.
5. In view of the above considerations it is clear that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 22-3-1982 did not suffer from want of jurisdiction. On the other hand the orders passed by the Commissioner, Faisalabad on 10-7-1983 are bad in law because they were passed in appeal which did not exist after 22-3-1982. The orders of the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, dated 10-7-1983 are, therefore, declared to be of no legal effect. The writ petition is allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs.