1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J. ----This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 21-11-1991 whereby the appellant's departmental appeal was dismissed and his prayer that his previous service in the Settlement Department be considered for computation of his pension, was refused.
2. The case set up by the appellant before the Federal Service Tribunal in brief was that the appellant served in the Settlement Department from 14-14960 up to 23-2-1976 and thereafter on the recommendation of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Administration), Lahore, he was inducted in PAF Base, Chakiala as Stenographer with effect from 24-2-1976 and on attaining the age of superannuation was retired from service on 10-3-1990 rendering 14 years of service in PAF, and was allowed anticipatory pension. His request that the period of service in Settlement Department be also counted in computing his pension, was turned down as according to appellant his service record was not sent to PAF Authorities. That PAF Authorities were bound, on failure of the Settlement Department to send the record, to have acted in accordance with Regulation 915 (iii) of the Civil Service Regulations. Leave was granted to examine the contention raised by the appellant.
3. ' We have heard the appellant in person and perused the record. The main question required determination in the context of the present dispute is as to whether the appellant's services were transferred from Settlement Department to PAF or the appellant's appointment by the P.A.F.
4. Authorities was a fresh one and in the latter case he is not entitled to press for counting his previous service in computing his pension. The appellant has failed to place on record the previous judgment and order of the Tribunal and that of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in respect of the present dispute between the parties herein. It is, however, evident from the certified copy of the judgment of this Court dated 21st January, 1978, given in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (No,26-R/1976), that the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Administration) Lahore Division on 17-3-1970 reported against the appellant and recommended for his transfer to Sukkur District. The appellant was accordingly transferred but he failed to comply with the transfer order and instead approached a Civil Court for staying his transfer order. Subsequently, on his request his suit was dismissed as withdrawn, on 13-5-1972. The appellant after such withdrawal, on 17-3-1972 requested the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, for payment of his emoluments and for cancellation of his transfer order but the request was turned down. The appellant then challenged in Constitution Petition the order of Settlement Commissioner and further prayed that a direction be issued to the Department for his absorption in service and for payment of his emoluments for fixation of his seniority. The Constitution Petition was dismissed on 24-9-1973. The L.P.A. Against the said order was dismissed by the High Court on 25-2-1974 and his petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by this Court on 30-11-1974.
5. ' Detailed facts of the protracted litigation are not given, however, it is clear from the judgment of this Court in the earlier petition for leave to appeal referred to in the earlier part. Of this judgment, that the appellant on his transfer to Sukkur did not join his duty and since then did not serve the Settlement Department and that the appellant accepted new appointment in PA.F. Base, Chaklala which negatives the appellant's contention that his services were transferred from the Settlement Department to PA.F. Authorities. However, the appellant in support of his case has placed reliance on a letter dated 03-12-1975 reproduced blow:-- "Subject: Appointment--Ministerial Staff.
6. ' Mr. Bashir Hussain Bokhari was appointed in this Department as Stenotypist on 14-1-1960. As a result of the provincialisation of the Settlement Department, the official was transferred to the Sindh Province.
7. ' During the period of his service in the regional office at Lahore, the official proved himself a competent Stenotypist, rather he was as good as Stenographer. His work and conduct was quite good. I recommend him for appointment as a Stenographer on the basis of merits.
8. Sd/x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x Dy. Settlement Commissioner (Admin) II-Egerton Road, Lahore."
9. ' A plain reading of the letter would show that it was a recommendatory letter certifying the appellant's previous experience in the Settlement Department for his appointment on merits. The appellant was appointed in PA.F. Vide office order dated 24-3-1976 which is reproduced as under:- - "PART CIVILIAN MINISTERIAL STAFF I. ENGAGEMENT ' The undermentioned civilian has been engaged as Stenotypist against establishment vacancy w,e,f. 24-2-1976 (FN). His pay fixed at Rs,200.00 p.m. In the National Scale of Pay of Rs,200-12-260- EB-15- 355-EB-15-425 w,e,f. The same date. Authorised to draw LCA @ of Rs, 10.00 p.m. Dearness Allowance at flat rate of. Rs,35.00 p.m DA @ of Rs,10 per cent of his basic pay, subject to minimum of Rs,50 p.m. And the maximum of Rs,150 and Additional Dearness Allowance at flat rate of Rs,25.00 p.m. From the same date. 'Certified that the individual has been declared medically fit. His upper age limit is relaxed by the competent authority.'
10. Authy:-Air HQ/17104/3/ADP(Civ-II) dated 24-3-76 and Base Commander Personal No, Name Designation M/2134 Mr. Bashir Hussain Stenotypist"
11. Bokhari, ' It is evident from the above that the appellant was engaged (appointed) against the vacancy with effect from 24-3-1976 on terms and conditions specifically set out therein after relaxation of his upper age limit. This aspect of the case further gets support from the appellant's own application dated nil addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, in which he has stated that he got his last pay on 1-3-1970 and since then he has not been paid any salary till he was appointed by the PA.F. Authorities at Chaklala in the same cadre on 24-3-1976.
12. ' In the earlier round of litigation, to which reference has been made, the grievance of the appellant has been dealt with by their Lordships in the concluding para of the judgment dated 21-1-1978 as under:-- "After hearing him in person we have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in this petition and that it deserves dismissal. He refused to obey the transfer order and did not work for the period for which he claims pay. He claims seniority over one Abdul Rehman but did not make him a party to his appeal before the Tribunal, besides he accepted a new appointment on 14-5-1975 while Abdul Rehman has been in service in the said grade since 1960."
13. ' Such being the case there is no force in the contention of the appellant that his services were transferred from the Settlement Department to PA.F. Chaklala and in consequence his previous service in the Settlement Department be counted towards his pensionary benefit. Rest of his contentions have been rejected earlier as back as in the year 1978. We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with no order as to costs.