1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This appeal; by leave of the. Court, seeks to challenge the correctness and legality of an order made by a Division Bench of the former High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore on the 25th of May 1966, whereby an order of compulsory retirement of the respondent Ghulam Muhammad, then serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1963, was set aside as being without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The exact date of birth of the petitioner does not appear to be available in the official records, but on the date of his recruitment as a Foot Constable in the Police Force on the 8th of April 1930 he was described as 19 years of age. Accordingly, his date of birth can be presumed to be 8-4-1911. He completed 25 years' service qualifying for pension on the 8th of April 1955. On his case being referred to the relevant committee by the Appropriate Authority under Rule 4 (1) of the aforesaid Rules a notice was issued to him on the .13th of November 1963 to show cause why he should not be made to retire. On the recommendation of the Committee the delegate of the Governor ordered the respondent's retirement with effect from the 15th of February 1964. The respondent's appeal against this order was dismissed by the inspector-General of Police on the 6th of October 1964, It was contended before the High Court that the proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules, under which action had been taken against the respon--dent was ultra vires of the 1962 Constitution inasmuch as it violated the terms and conditions of service guaranteed by clause (3) of Article 178 and Article 234 of that Constitution. Relying upon their decision in the earlier case of Karamatullah v. The Government of' Pakistan (PLD 1967 Lah. 17), the learned Judges accepted the contention and set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent.
3. The decision of the High Court in Karamatullah's case was approved by this Court in appeal in the judgment reported as Government of West Pakistan v. Karamatullah Khan (PLD 1967 Lah. 17). In view of this decision, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, appearing in support of this appeal, has not addressed any arguments as to the correctness of the order made by the High Court in favour of the respondent. The present appeal, therefore, stands concluded on this ground.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, however, submits that as a result of the order made by the High Court the respondent was continued in service even beyond the age of 55 years, which he completed on 8-4-66, and was ultimately retired in 1967, even though by the time the High Court delivered its judgment on the 25th of May 1966, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution had already come into force on the 31st of March 1966. He complains that the High Court did not notice the effect of this amendment on the respondent's case, who would have autorfiatically retired after com--pleting the age of 55 years as laid down in this amendment. He further states that the continuance of the respondent in service beyond the age of 55 years was also influenced by the observations made by this Court in the last paragraph of the judgment in Karamatullah's case to the effect that even under the Sixth Amendment a specific order of retirement was necessary. He, therefore, requests that it is both necessary and appropriate that the matter be clarified as it is likely to affect several other cases of compulsory retirement of Provincial Government Servants.
5. We find that although it is correct that the High Court did not notice the Sixth Amendment which had been promulgated by the time judgment was recorded in this case, but it is not correct to say that the retention of the respondent in service beyond the age of 55 years was in any manner influenced by the observations of this Court in Karamatullah's case regarding the implications of the Sixth Amendment, as that judgment was delivered by this Court after the respondent had ultimately retired from service.
6. However, we are inclined to agree with the learned Assistant Advocate General that prima facie the language used in Clause (b) of sub-Article (4) of Article 178 of the 1962 Constitution, as substituted by the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1966, promulgated on 31-3-1966, does not appear; to require the making of a specific order for the compulsory retirement of a person whose case falls within the ambit of this Clause. As the A Provincial Government feels that the observations made by this Court in the last paragraph of the judgment delivered in Karamatullah's case are likely to~ affect a considerable number of cases falling within the purview of Clause (b), mentioned above, let this matter be placed for consideration before then Full Court.