1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---This is an appeal against the judgment dated 25-6-1985 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in R.SA. No, 165 of 1983.
2. ' The relevant facts are that the appellant was appointed as an Overseer in Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi with effect from 7-10-1947. The Municipal Committee, Rawalpinidi, by a resolution .
3. Dated 30-8-1956, recommended that he be appointed as a Municipal Engineer on a probation for a period of six months and that the requisite sanction of the Government may be obtained in due course. The Commissioner Rawalpindi, by his order dated 11-12-1956, approved the said appointment under section 38 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, subject to relaxation of the provision of Rule 11 of the Municipal Works Rules, 1?25 by the Government. By order dated 6-3-1957, the Government accorded sanction under section 38 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 read with Rule 11 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Works Rules, 1925, to the officiating promotion of the appellant as Municipal Engineer for a period of one year w.e.f, 30-8-1956. However, in the same order, the Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi, was directed to make arrangements for recruitment of a better qualified Engineer. After the expiry of period of probation of one year, Municipal Committee, Rawlapinid, once again, in its meeting held on 29-8-1957, recommended that the appellant may be confirmed as a Muncipal Engineer with effect from 30-8-1957 and that the sanction of the Government under Rule 11 (2) of the Municipal Works Rules, 1925, be obtained. The Government or the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division never approved the appointment of the appellant as Municipal Engineer. On the other hand, the Commissioner, Rawalpindi who was the then presecribed Authority passed an order on 9th July, 1959, saying as under:-- "According to Rule 11 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Works Rules, 1925, Mir Allah Bakhsh is not a qualified engineer and his appointment was not approved under section 38 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and he cannot, therefore, continue as a Municipal Engineer."
4. ' In compliance with the abovesaid order of the Commissioner Rawalpindi, the then Administrator, Municipal Committee Rawalpindi, reverted the appellant to his parent and substantive post of Overseer with effect from 10-7-1959. The appellant challenged the said reversion order by means of a civil suit maintainaing that he is a permanent Municipal Engineer of Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi and sought permanent injunction restraining Municipal Committee Rawalpindi and the Province of West Pakistan from removing or reverting him from the post of Municipal Engineer. The civil suit was ultimately dimissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 12-10-1964, wherein the appellant's reversion order was upheld and it was declared that the appellant was not entitled to continue as a Municipal Engineer. However, the appellant was successful in retaining the charge as a Municipal Engineer, firstly on the basis of temporary injunction issued by the lower Court and subsequently on the strength of the judgments of the lower as well as the First Appellate Court. On 13-11-1963 the Government had also passed orders reverting the appellant and directed the Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi to expedite his reversion on which the then Chairman, Municipal Committee Rawalpindi passed an order on 28-1-1964 reverting him with immediate effect.
5. ' The appellant thereupon again filed a civil suit against the said order and obtained a temporary injunction from the Civil Court. However, during the pendency of the said suit on 31-7-1965, the appellant submitted an application to the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, expressing his desire to retire from the Municipal service, whereupon the appellant was retired from the Municipal service on 3- 11-1965, with effect from 5-11-1965. The appellant, however, filed another suit challenging the said retirement order. His prayer for temporary injunction was refused by the Court, whereafter the appellant withdrew both his suits. The appellant's final retirement order was then passed on 8-11- 1965 and he was relieved on 27-11-1965.
6. ' The question then arose which is of relevance to us in these proceedings as to what pension is to be granted to the appellant. The Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi on 20-7-1967 decided to allow pension to him at the rate of Rs,85.67 per month on the basis that he had retired as an Overseer.
7. This decision was again challenged by the appellant before a Civil Court on the ground that he having retired as a Municipal Engineer was entitled to be granted pension on that basis not that he retired as an Overseer. This plea has been rejected right up to the High Court and it has been held that the appellant's claim that he retired as Municipal Engineer was not correct. To consider this question further leave to appeal was granted by this Court.
8. ' Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, has been heard. He has strongly relied on the order of the Chairman, Municipal Corporation dated 3-11-1965 which reads: "Steno/80 ' OFFICE ORDER NO. 157 dated 3-11-1965 ' The Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi vide his Memo. No, 190/Steno dated 31-10-1965 has been pleased to allow Mir Allah Bakhsh to retire from service at his own request. Mr. Allah Bakhsh will be relieved of his duties as Municipal Engineer (B&R) w.e.f, the forenoon of the 5th November, 1965. He will hand over chanrge of his duties to Mr. Lall Khan who is the Senior Overseer of the B&R Branch. Charge report should be submitted to the undersigned on 5-11-1965. He will be granted leave preparatory to retirement according to rules w.e.f, 5-11-1965 and subject to tile.
9. (Sd.) Chairman, Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi."
10. His submission is that in the aforesaid order while retiring the appellant he is described as being a Municipal Engineer and, therefore, to have treated him as an-Overseer at the time of his retirement was not correct.
11. ' Unfortunately, this plea cannot be accepted. The perusal of the order of the Chairman, Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi reveals that all that is said in this connection is that Mr. Allah Bakhsh (appellant herein) will be relieved of his duties as Municipal Engineer. It is nowhere stated that he was being retired as a Municipal Engineer at the time of retirement and merely a reference is made to the fact that he was performing duties as Municipal Engineer at the time of retirement of which he was being relieved and it is well known that this he was doing under the stay orders granted by the Courts. Moreover, it needs to be mentioned that at no stage the order of reversion passed against the appellant was ever rescinded or recalled. Most importantly even this order of retirement, now being relied upon, was challenged by the appellant himself by filing another suit, but as his prayer for temporary injunction was refused by the Court he decided to withdraw the said suit. This shows that he himself also did not accept the order of the Chairman. In these circumstances, we think that the Municipal Corporation is right in taking the position that at the time of retirement, the appellant's substantive position was that of an Overseer.
12. In the end we may, however, mention that we have been informed that the appellant has not been paid his pensionary dues nor the amount of gratuity and other benefits to which he is entitled on retirement by the Municipal Corporation so far. If this is correct we would direct the Municipal Corporation to pay all the pensionary dues, as well as his gratuity and other benefits permissible to the appellant without any further delay. We understand that the appellant is in a very poor physical state of health and has lost his eyesight. The Municipal Corporation should, therefore, act expeditiously in clearing all the dues to which he is entitled.
13. ' With these observations this appeal stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.