1. ORDER S*ad Saood Jan (Chairman).--In this appeal the appellant challenges two orders, namely,
(1) the order dated 22-4-1965 whereby he was r. verted from his officiating appointment of Deputy Director of Labour Welfare to his substantive appointment of Assistant Director of Labour Welfare, and (2) the order dated 7-11-1969, whereby he was deemed to have retired from service with effect from 23-2*1969 when he attained the age of 55 years. It is to be observed that this Tribunal is not competent to hear appeals in respect of orders or decisions of departmental authorities made at any time before the lst July 1969. Since the order of reversion in the case of the appellant from the post of Deputy Director to the post of Assistant Director was made on 22-4-1965, it is not open to this Tribunal to examine its * legality or validity. The appellant has admitted before us that he represented against the order of reversion soon after it was made but his representation met with no success. It is, thus, clear that the order of reversion became final long before 1st July 1969. In order to bring the order of reversion within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, the appellant has referred to a letter dated 9-8-1973, which was received by him from the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjab. This letter sets out the grounds on which his reversion was ordered. According to the appellant this letter gave him a fresh cause of action and since it was issued on 9-8-1973 he was within its right to challenge his reversion before the Tribunal. We do not think so. The appellant has been submitting representations against his reversion almost annually.
2. The letter of 9-8-1973 merely elaborates the grounds upon which his reversion was earlier ordered and it in no wise detracts from the finality which the order of B reversion assumed in 1965. There is another aspect of the matter also. This letter was sent to the appellant in response to a complaint made by him to the Chief Minister of the Punjab. It merely expresses the inability of the Chief Minister to interfere with the order of reversion. The only cause of action which this letter can possibly confer upon the appellant is the refusal of the Chief Minister to interfere in his case. The relief which the appellant is claiming before us is not in respect of the refusal of the Chief Minister to interfere in the matter but is with regard to the order of reversion itself. Consequently the letter in question does not have the effect of bringing the order of reversion within the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal. So far as the order of 7-11-1969 is concerned, we do not think that it in any way adversely affects the terms and conditions of the appellant's service. It is to be observed that at the time when this letter was issued the Constitution of 1962, read with the Provisional Constitution Order, was in force. Paragraph 'C of clause 4 of Article 178 of the Constitution of 1962 fixed the age of retirement at 55 years. The said provision was so worded that the retirement of a civil servant took place automatically when he attained the age of 55 years, without requiring any specific order of the competent authority in this regard. Thus even if we hold for the sake of argument that the notification of 7-11-1969 was illegal it will not help the appellant for he stood retired by virtue of a constitutional provision on 23-2-1969 when he attained the age of 55 years. We, therefore, do not see how the notification in question has adversely affected his terms and conditions of service. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed in limine.
3. The appellant should be informed accordingly. Note.--One of us (Mr. Khalid Farooq Akbar) had dealt with the file of the appellant in the Complaint Cell of the Provincial Government. This fact was brought to the notice of the appellant and he stated that he had no objection to the said Member sitting in the Tribunal and bearing his appeal.