1. ALLY MADAD SHAH, J.-- The petitioner Zafar Zaid Ahmad rendered service with the Karachi Port Trust in different capacities for 25 years. He had joined service in the year 1957 as a Traffic Superivsor, 2nd' Grade. He was holding the post of Traffic Inspector, 2nd Grade, when he was informed by a letter, dated 4-1-1982 addressed to him by the Peronnel Officer, Karachi Port Trust Traffic Department, that he would stand retired with effect from 28-5-1982 on completing the service for 25 years, as decided by the Advisory Committee. He was informed by the same officer by subsequent communication, dated 15-5-1982 that the Board of Trustees had not accepted his appeal, dated 20-12-1981. But had approved and confirmed the Chairman's action ,sanctioning his retirement on completion of 25 years service. Reference was made in this letter to the earlier communication dated 4-1-1982 already referred to above. The petitioner lodged grievance petition with the National Industrial Relations Commission under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His grievance petition was dismissed by order, dated 12-8-1982. He filed this petition thereafter on 11-11-1982 for following reliefs:- "(a) Quash the proceedings of retirement with impugned orders, dated 4-1-1982 and 15-5-1982 and other orders in relation to it passed by the respondents.
(b) Prohibit the respondents from retiring the petitioner otherwise than in due course of law.
(c) Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The main grounds agitated by the petitioner are that the orders for his premature retirement were made without lawful authority on mala fide consideration. His main contention is that he could not be prematurely retired without approval of. The Federal Government.
3. The respondents have resisted the petition and denied the allegations of mala fides behind the petitioner's retirement on completing service for 25 years. The plea is that the petitioner was retired on completion of 25 years service in accordance with the law and rules.
2. 3-a. At the time of hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed only one ground that the petitioner could not be retired on completion of 25 years service without approval of the Federal Government. He made reference to clause (c) of rule (1) of the Revised Rules laying down the procedure to determine retention in service of Karachi Port Trust Employees after 25 years of service as contained in Appendix 'E' to the K.P.T. Digest of Pay, Allowances and Leave Rules.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the case of the petitioner regarding his premature retirement- stood covered by clause (b) of the same Rule (1) relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. A copy of Appendix 'D' referred to by the learned counsel for the parties has been placed on the record and its authenticity was not questioned before us. It would be worthwhile to reproduce it hereinbelow in extenso.
4. "APPENDIX 'E'
5. Slip No. 15 K.P.T. Digest of Pay, Allowances and Leave Rules. Page 85 - 1968 Edition.
6. Rules laying down the procedure to determine retention/of Karachi Port Trust Employees after 25 years of service.
7. The existing rules contained in Appendix 'E' shall be substituted by the following Rules:-
(1) The competent authority means:-
(a) Chairman in case of employees whose maximum grade of pay does not exceed Rs.500.
(b) Board in case of employees the maximum of whose grade of pay exceeds Rs.500 but is less than Rs.1,100.
(c) The Board (with the approval of the Government) in case of all Heads of Departments and Officers the maximum of whose grade is not less than Rs.1,100.
8. The retention will be determined at least 6 months before such person completes 25 years of service.
9. The case will be reviewed by an Advisory Committee constituted as under:- "(i) For employees within the competence of the Chairman, the committee will consist of three officers appointed by the Chairman from time to time.
(ii) For officers who come within the competence of the Board, the Committee will consist of Chairman and two other Heads of Departments nominated by the Chairman.
(iii) For officers who fall within the purview of Government under section 24 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, the Committee will consist of Chairman and two Trustees appointed by the Board."
10. The retirement at 58 years of age would be rule.
11. The committee shall make its recommendation in writing as to whether the employee should be retired at the end of 25 years of service.
12. The recommendation of the Committee shall be considered by the competent authority for deciding whether the officer/ employee concerned should be retained or not.
13. An order of retirement shall be communicated to the employee concerned at least the months before the date of completion of 25 years of service and will be operative on completion thereof.
14. A person retired under these rules shall be entitled to such benefits of contributory provident fund as would have been admissible under the rules applicable to the person on the abolition of his permanent post.
15. "(Approved under Board's Resolution No. 780, dated the 21st June, 1972 and sanctioned by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Political Affairs and Communications (Directorate-General of Ports and Shipping), Karachi vide their letter No. 3-22/68--P.III(Pt.), dated 30th August, 1972."
4. It would appear from the aforesaid Rules that the employees of the Karachi Port Trust have been placed in three categories for the purpose of their retirement on completion of 25 years of service.
16. The first category is that of the employees whose maximum grade of pay does not exceed Rs.500.
17. The second category consists of the employees whose maximum grade of pay exceeds Rs.500 but is less than Rs.1,100. The third category comprises of the Heads of Department and Officers whose maximum grade of pay is not less than 88.1,100. The competent authority for retiring employees in category one on completion of 25 years of service is the Chairman; and in the case of the employees in the second category the competent authority is the Board; and for the employees in category three, the competent authority is the Board with the approval of the Government. The petitioner's case is that he was drawing pay of more than Rs.1,100 at the time of his retirement and, therefore, he enjoyed the rank in the officers comprising 3rd category and his retirement could be ordered only with the approval of the Government, which was not done. The learned counsel for the respondents has urged, on the other hand, that although the petitioner was drawing pay of more than Rs.1,100 at the relevant time, yet he did not enjoy the rank of an officer and was deemed to be one of the employees and his case stood covered by the second category of the employees and his retirement could be ordered by the Board without the approval of the Government. An attempt was made by the learned counsel for both the parties by prod4cing copies of pay scales to indicate as to in what category the rank of the petitioner could be placed, but the copies produced by them do not portray clear picture of the pay scales. However, it was not disputed that the petitioner was lastly drawing pay in a grade the maximum pay of which was more than Rs.1,100.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents yet advanced the argument that the petitioner did not find place in category No. 3 comprised of the officers merely because he was drawing pay of more than Rs.1,100. According to him, the petitioner was then ranking in Grade 15-A in the category of the employees, whereas the officers stood graded from grade 146 to grade 22, but he has not filed a copy of schedule of the staff of offices and servants which must have been maintained under section 21 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. Of course the Act i.e. The Karachi Port 'trust Act 1886 does categorise the staff as officers and servants, as provided under section 21 thereof, but the schedule of the staff sanctioned and prepared by the Board has not been produced for determination of the rank of the petitioner in the staff of the Port.
19. However, it appears from the Rules laying down the procedure for determining retention of Karachi Port Trust Employees in service after 25 years of service, already reproduced above, that those rules relate to all the employees of the Port including the officers,. The Rules have divided all the employees, for the purpose of their retention in service of 25 years of service. In the three categories on the basis of their grades of pay as mentioned above. The first category of the employees comprises of those employees whose maximum grade of pay does not exceed Rs.500.
20. The second category of the employees comprises the employees whose maximum grade of pay exceeds Rs.500 but is less than Rs.1,100. The 3rd category of the employees comprises those employees whose maximum grade of pay is not less than Rs.1,000. Of course, it is mentioned. That the 3rd category of the employees comprises Heads of Department and officers. But the Rules do not contemplate any other category of employees to stand in between the second category and the 3rd category of the employees. The petitioner was holding the job of Traffic Inspector, Grade-2, when his services were dispensed with on his completing the service of 25 years and he was drawing pay in the grade of Rs.600-40-1,000/50-1 300 as indicated in the order of his confirmation, dated 20-2-1982. Earlier to this, he was holding the same post in acting capacity vide order, dated 23-1-1981. Since he was holding the post, the maximum grade pay of which was more than Rs.1,100, his case does not fall within the first two categories of the employees envisaged under the aforesaid Rules for determining retention in service on completion of 25 years of service.
21. Accordingly, the petitioner's case was to be considered in category 3 of the employees as provided in the Rules. The services of the employees falling in C category 3 could not be dispensed with on completion of 25 years of service without the approval of the Government as laid down in they Rules. It is an admitted position that approval of the Government was not obtained for dispensing with the service of the petitioner on his completing 25 years of service. There is yet another lacuna in the proceedings taken against the petitioner for retiring him from service on completing 25 years of service, in view of the findings recorded above that he occupied the post in service in category 3 of the employees. The rules of retirement referred to and reproduced above lay down that the cases of the employees in category 3 for their retirement on completing 25 years of service would be reviewed by an advisory committee consisting of the Chairman and two Trustees appointed by Board, whereas the question of retirement of the petitioner was reviewed by the Committee consisting of the Chairman and two other Heads of Department nominated by him. As per rules, orders of the retirement o: the petitioner were to be passed by the Board with the approval of the Government as discussed above, but the order of the retirement of the petitioner seems to have been passed by the Chairman and its confirmation was sought from the Board in the garb of an order on an application of the petitioner, of course styled as 'appeal', made on n0-1-1981 i.e. Much before the orders were passed for his retirement. In fact, the petitioner seems to have apprehended that he would be retired from service after he was served with the notice that he should appear before the Review Committee and he made an application, styling it as an 'appeal' that his service record and his contribution in the field of sports may be taken into consideration while reviewing his case for retirement. This application ('appeal'), seems to have been placed before the Board after orders for the retirement of the petitioner were passed and the Board of Trustees were pleased to reject his 'appeal'. The order of the retirement of the petitioner is bad in law on this score also. Obviously, the orders for termination of the service of the petitioner on the ground of his completing 25 years of service conveyed to him by the letters, dated 4-1 -1982 and 15-5-1982 were without lawful authority.
5. The petitioner has prayed for quashment of the aforesaid orders and also for prohibitory orders restraining the respondents from retiring him from service. It appears that the petitioner has already been retired from service. The relief of prohibitory order prayed for is not available to him now. As regards the other reliefs, the orders of the retirement, dated 4-1-1982 and 15-2-1982 are declared to, have been made without lawful authority. The petition is allowed to that extent only.
22. The petitioner is awarded costs of the petition against respondent No. 2 viz. The Board of Trustees, who are the employers.