SIAAD SAOOD JAN, J .--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 28-8- 1986 of the Federal Service Tribunal, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner from an order directing his retirement from service.
2. The petitioner joined service under the Water and Power Development Authority as Junior Engineer on 13-5-1959. As he possessed high academic qualifications he was given eight advance increments. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in 1962 and was then given accelerated promotion as Superintending Engineer in 1967. He was further promoted as Chief Engineer out of turn in 1976. He was retired from service by an office order dated 2-3-1986. He filed an appeal against the said office order before the Federal Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Federal Service Tribunal.
3. In support of this petition the main contention of the petitioner is that the Chairman of the authority who directed his retirement was not competent to do so and that the power in this regard vested only in the Authority which according to section 4(1) comprised the Chairman and the Members acting together.
4. The office order in question has been made under rule 3(a) of the WAPDA Employees (Retirement) Rules, 1979. This rule reads as follows: ---- "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the order or the letter of appointment of an employee or in the terms of his service or in any other rule applicable to him, the WAPDA employee shall retire from service:-
(a) In the case of an employee holding the post in Grade 20 or equivalent post, on such date as the 'competent authority' may in the public interest direct.
(b) In any other case on such date after he has completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension, gratuity, or other retirement benefits or on completion of the 55th year of his age, as the 'competent authority' may in the public interest direct, or .
(c) Where no such direction is given under clause (a) or (b). As the case may be, on completion of 60th year of his age."
The expression 'competent authority' has been defined in rule 2(c) as follows: - ---Competent Authority' means the Authority or the appointing authority or an officer designated by the Authority to exercise powers of the 'competent authority'."
It is not disputed that in so far as the petitioner is concerned the Chairman of WAPDA is the competent authority within the meaning of rule 3(a). However, it is contended that as the petitioner had put in 25 years of service his case was covered not by clause (a) but by clause (b) of Rule 3. It is further contended that in various office memoranda issued by the Authority the power to determine whether an employee was suitable enough to remain in service after he had put in25 years of service has been reserved by the Authority for itself. In this context reliance is being placed on the office memoranda issued by the Authority on 20-5-1980, 3-5-1983, 14-1-1984 and 2-1-1985.
On the basis of these office memoranda, it is argued that it was not the Chairman but the Authority which could direct his retirement. Consequently, as the office order in question emanated from the Chairman alone it was of no legal effect.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner need consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal should be made ready for final hearing within two months on the present record. The parties will be at liberty to add such documents as they may wish to add.