' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is an appeal by Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry, appellant, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 15-1-1984 dismissing his appeal as being incompetent.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry, appellant, joined service in the Government of the Punjab on 5-12-1951 as Cashier in the Transport Service Rawalpindi. On the constitution of the Punjab Road Transport Board, his services were transferred to the Board. The Board was succeeded by the Road Transport Corporation and later by. The Punjab Urban Transport Corporation. At the relevant time he was serving as Accounts Officer in the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation. On 15-7-1982 the Managing Director of the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation directed his compulsory retirement. He made a claim that he should be granted leave preparatory to retirement, together with the pay in accordance with the rules, as also gratuity and provident fund as were available to the employees of the Provincial Government. His claim was rejected, whereupon he filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that he was not a civil servant and as such his appeal was incompetent. Accordingly, it dismissed his appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant petitioned this Court for leave to appeal, which leave was granted to consider the question as to whether the appellant could be treated as one on deputation, in view of the decision of this Court in Fayyaz Ali Khan v. Government of West Pakistan 1971 SCM R 454.
3. On behalf of the appellant it is submittd that he was initially appointed as Cashier in Government Transport Service on 5-12-1951 and in 1952 his services were transferred to the Punjab Road Transport.Board after its formation. On 31-3-1977 the appellant was permanently transferred to the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation. On 154-1982 the appellant was compulsorily retired from service by the Managing Director, Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, Lahore. It is contended, on the basis of the following cases, namely, Punjab Road Transport Board v. Raja Umer Hayat (C.P.
No,1049 of -1980, decided by the Supreme Court on 16-3-1982), Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad v. Chairman, Punjab Road Transport Board 1977 PLC (C.S.T.) 110), Punjab Road Transport Board v. Punjab Service Tribunal 1982 SCM R 76 and Fayyaz Ali Khan's case (supra) that the appellant continued to remain a Government servant and he was thus entitled to retirement benefits as were available to Government servants.
4. On behalf of the Government and the Punjab. Urban Transport Corporation, respondent, it is submitted that the appellant ceased to be an employee of the Government and stood absorbed in the service of the Punjab Road Transport Board and thereafter with the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation and that he continued to receive salary, bonuses and fringe benefits as paid by the said autonomous bodies. It is further submitted that being a temporary servant, the appellant had no lien on officiating appointments. In this connection L.H. Sheikh v. General Manager, Karachi, Telecommunication Region 1974 SCM R 82 is referred.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and have perused the record. It appears that the matter in dispute has not been dealt with in some depth by the Punjab Service Tribunal and bearing in mind the arguments addressed by, the learned counsel for the opposing parties and the case-law submitted by them, it appears to be in the interest of justice that the appellant's appeal is 'remanded back to the Tribunal so that it may decide the matter afresh as to whether the appellant is a civil servant or not, after taking into consideration fresh documents that may be produced by the parties and fresh arguments that may be advanced by them.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No,583/118 of 1982 and remand the said appeal back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law, in terms of the directions given above.