' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Badar-ud-Din has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents Nos, 1 to 4 as mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 17th September, 1984 of respondent No, 1, rejecting appellant's claim for pension for the service rendered by him from 27th September, 1948 to 3rd November, 1981 be set aside and the respondents be directed to sanction pension for the entire period of the service of the appellant.
3. The appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined Army service as Havildar Clerk on 27th September, 1941 and after serving the Army for about seven years, he was relieved from Army service on 13th September, 1948. The appellant joined Food Department as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region, Lahore w,e,f, 3rd September, 1953. Through an order dated 26th July, 1962, the appellant was relieved of his duties w. e. f. 26th July, 1962 to join as Assistant in the office of the Agricultural Development Corporation, West Pakistan, Lahore. The office being a temporary one, no lien of the appellant was retained in the Food Department. After that the appellant has worked in the WPADC/ASO/FDFI/PA . The contention of the appellant is that his total service e., in the Food Department and W.P.A.D.S.C., etc. Be considered for the purposes of pensionary benefits and respondents be directed to allow him the pension for the above entire period of his service. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has submitted that the appellant had served the Punjab Government, Food Department from 3rd September, 1953 to 26th July, 1962, when his services were transferred to W.P.A.D.C. Vide order dated 26th July, 1962. As his services were transferred to W.P.A.D.C., hence his services from 27th July, 1962 to 3rd November, 1981 rendered in W.P.H.D.S.C. Etc. Are to be counted to wards the pensionary benefits and the appellant be made entitled for this entire period for the pension. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the Military Service of the appellant from 27th September, 1941 to 13th September, 1948 is also countable towards pension benefits as well.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record of this case as well. The appellant joined in the Army as Havildar Clerk and served there from 27th September, 1941 to 13th September, 1948. Then after lapse of 5 years the appellant joined the Food Department, Punjab, as Junior Clerk on 3rd September, 1953. The appellant did not claim benefits for his previous service in the Army when he was appointed in the Food Department, Punjab. The appellant cannot claim this benefit at this belated stage which even is not admissible under the rules. The appellant served for about 8 years and 11 months, in the Punjab Food Department from 3rd September, 1953 to 26th July, 1962, when the appellant of his own choice, on his appointment as Assistant in the Office of the Agricultural Development Corporation, West Pakistan, Lahore left the Food Department and joined the W.P.A.D.C. We have, perused the letter, dated 26th July, 1962 of the Food Department (Annexure '13') through which the appellant was relieved of his duties to join W.P.A.D.C. This order is clear that "this office being temporary one, no lien of the officials will be retained." According to this order the lien of the appellant was terminated in the Food Department and the appellant become an employee of the Agricultural Development Corporation, West Pakistan, Lahore from 27th July, 1962 onward. The appellant had been serving since than in W.P.A.D.C., A.S.O./F.D.F.I. And PAD&SC and his services are to be governed by the Rule and Regulations of those Organinzations and the appellant cannot claim benefits of pension as he was not a Government servant while working in those organizations. We have also perused the letter, dated 16th August, 1984 of Government of the Punjab, Food Department addressed to the Member Technical, Department of the Governor's Inspection Team, Punjab, Pipals, House, Lahore Annexure 'A' attached with the appeal. Paras. 2 to 4 of this letter are reproduced below :- "2. "2. The application of Mr. Badar-ud-Din enclosed with our letter No, 78/83/2703-GIT (MT-II), dated 2nd November, 1983 has been thoroughly examined. The following are the two main issues involved in this case :-
(1) Whether was on deputation in W.P.A.D.C. And had any lien against prevenient post in the Food Department.
(2) Whether he is entitled to pensionary benefit for the period he served the Food Department.
3. As regards No, (1) Mr. Badar-ud-Din was holding temporary post of Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Director Food, Lahore. On his appointment in W.P.A.D.C. As Assistant he was relieved of his duties on 26th July, 1962 with the specific condition that he being temporary one, no lien of this official will be retained in Food Department. Mr. Badar-ud-Din could not produce any documentary proof with regard to the settlement of his terms and conditions of deputation nor such a proof is available from any file of the Food Department as well as the W.P.A.D.C. Moreover, from the record available, in the W.P.A.D.C. It is evident that Mr. Badar-ud-Din got promotions from time to time and was elevated to the post of Assistant Director when he was retired. It is clear that he had served all his connections with the Food Department on 26th July, 1962. As such, his claim for pension for his being deputation in W.P.A.D.C. Become infructuous.
4. As regards No, (2) above, he rendered only 8 years and 10 months service in the Food Department and, as such, he is not entitled to any pension benefit. Even if his period of army service for 7 years i. e. From 9/41 to 9148 is added to his previous service rendered in the Food Department, the total service comes to 15 years 6 months and 28 days. It does not make him entitled for pension.
The matter under issue has been correctly clinched by the Government of the Punjab, Food Department, and we are in full agreement with the above views of the Food Department. We have no hesitation to hold that the claim of the appellant is not justified and there is no merit for the same.
7. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed as such, in limine.