' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, (CHAIRMAN).-Moeen-ud-Din Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Executive Engineer, Canal Eastern Bar Division Pakpattan, District Sahiwal and Superintending Engineer, Nili Dar circle, J. C.
Sabiwal, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the Order No, 5529 dated 4th September, 1979 passed by the Executive Engineer Pakpattan (Eastern Bar Division) by which retirement petition of the appellant has been rejected and order of Superintending Engineer issued vide No, 7783WE/119/3. E, dated 17th February, 1983, by which appeal/representation of the appellant has been rejected be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was serving as Patwari, asked for his retirement with full pension benefits on the plea that he had completed 25 years service qualifying for pension. His request was rejected by the Executive Engineer,. Eastern Bar Division, on the ground that his services were once terminated and was re-appointed, therefore, his earlier period of service upto the date of termination could not be counted towards his qualifying service and as such could not be retired. He filed representation to the Superintending Engineer who did not agree to uphold the order of the Executive Engineer. Hence this appeal.
4.. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at this preliminary stage of hearing and have also examined the parawise comments so submitted by the Department in defence of their action so taken against the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the point that the services of the appellant were never terminated and in fact he continued to serve as such without any break, therefore, the Department was under obligation to count his earlier period of service towards pension.
6. On the other hand the Department in the comments has vehemently denied this contention and has submitted that the appellant was proceeded under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and his services were terminated from 18th June 1966, vide Executive Engineer, (Eastern Bar Division) Office Letter No, 304/55-E, dated 24th January 1967, under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960.
According to the respondents he was allowed to join duties in Halqa 121/EB vide XEN Eastern Bar Division order, dated 3rd July, 1967, as new appointee with clear indication that he would be placed at the bottom of the list. It has also been urged in the comments that the appellant had full knowledge of 'the same and now cannot come forward with the plea that all what happened, had happened behind the back.
7. ' We have given our anxious thought to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as parawise comments so submitted by the Executive Engineer Eastern Bar Division, and find that vide Annexure "I" placed on the record, the appellant's services were duly terminated vide his order dated, 24th January 1967, and he was appointed afresh on 3rd July, 1967.
Annexure "I" is a complete proof of the same, which is an office order showing the appellant as a new appointee in Halqa 121/EB, Arifwala Section, in place of Muhammad Iqbal approved Patwari.
The Department has also placed for our perusal Annexure "4" which is final order, dated 24th January, 1967, informing the appellant that his reply has been found unsatisfactory and found wilfully absent from duty and consequently his services were terminated with effect from 18th June, 1966. There is an acknowledgment of the appellant on the margin of the same. It view of this documentary evidence so placed on the record, we cannot accept the plea of the appellant that he was unaware of the termination of earlier Service and in fact had continued as Patwari without any break in his service. This being an established fact on the record, we hardly find any prima facie case in favour of the B appellant which would persuade us to admit his case to regular hearing. According to the record of the Department so- produced before us, the appellant would be a fresh appointee and his services towards pension would be counted from the date when he was so appointed as such.
8. Resultantly we do not find any exception to the impugned orders so challenged by the appellant and dismiss the appeal in llmine. There will be no order as to cost.