DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court by which the application for reinstatement came to be allowed with back benefits. Succinctly stated the facts forming the back grounds of this appeal are as follows:-- It is alleged that the petitioner was on 1-1-1958 appointed in the Agricultural Engineering Department Hyderabad Division as a work-charged employee. In 1982 his services were regularised in Grade-8 in the capacity of a Bulldozer Operator. In 1984 however his services came to be terminated for remaining absent from duty, It was thereafter that he had made an application to the Director, Agricultural Engineering, Sindh Hyderabad requesting for his retirement and with pension benefits. He submitted Medical Certificates of different doctors in support of his long drawn illness. Recommendation was made by the Agricultural Engineer, Hyderabad Division and the Director of Agricultural Engineering allowed the retirement.
2. The papers were sent to the Accountant-General, Sindh for scrutiny and the issuance of pension payment order. It appears that on an objection from the Accountant-General that the petitioner was not qualified for the grant of any pension as he had riot completed 25 years service; the order was withdrawn without any show-cause notice. He states to have preferred an appeal to the Director-General and was found to be entitled to his pension with effect from 7-3-1984. It was alleged that since the order was rot being implemented he served a grievance notice on 28-8-1991 and finding no satisfaction had to file the petition. The prayer was in the following terms:-- "It is, therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to allow the grievance application and direct the respondents to grant pension benefits to applicant having completed more than 25 years service as per Service Rules in the best interests of justice"
3. In the written reply it was alleged that after the regularisation of his service in the establishment with effect from 1982 the petitioner had become a civil servant and therefore the petition did not lie.
It was alleged that his absence stretching to years was because he had sought a job outside the country. It was also alleged that on the objection taken by the Accountant---General his service book was examined and it was found that his contingencies services began from 9-3-1961 and not from 1-1-1958. It was also found that interpolation had been made in the record for which the erring clerk had been charge-sheeted. It was also mentioned that after the services had been terminated on 7-3-1984 there was no reinstatement. The other allegations also came to be denied,
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Ali Nawaz, Office Superintendent appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. The address was confined to facts alone even though there was an objection about the competence of the petition as to be found in the written statement.
6. It is to be seen that the order under which the appellant was brought on the regular establishment mentioned that "the pay fixation will be subject to the verification by the Accountant-General Sindh Karachi" and para. 3 thereof went on to say that "he will be governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules applicable to the regular establishment and amendments thereon issued by the Government from time to time." As seen earlier his pension papers had gone to the Accountant-General for the grant of pension and it was on the objection raised by him that his troubles started. I am clearly of the opinion that in view of the decision in Faqir Muhammad v. Director National 'laving, Multan Region PLD 1992 SC 127 and Government of Baluchistan, Live stock Department v. Live Stock Employees Union 1993 PLC page 13 the objection must prevail. However a word may as well be mentioned on merits.
7. The regularisation order issued by the Directorate of Agricultural Engineering, Sindh which has been referred to earlier, was accompanied by a list of all the contingencies employees who had been absorbed in the regular establishment. It shows their names. They were 300 in all. The name of the appellant is to be found at No. 33. The list shows that he was on the contingencies list from 27-7-1961 and the list is. Not in dispute. The appellant however had stated that he had worked since 1958 as a coolie before he came to be appointed as a chowkidar in the year 1961. In his cross- examination however he had to concede that he had no appointment letter or anything to show that he was on the pay roll of the respondent before 1961. Since he came to be retired in 1984, demonstrably the objection taken by the Accountant---General is beyond challenge. Certainly it does not make 25 years and under the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963 as amended for the Government of Sindh, there will be no question of entitlement before the completion of 25 years,
8. The recommendations and the grant of pension on the basis of 25 years service give a bad test to the mouth. But once the bluff had been called off the Directorate of Agriculture had only to retreat from what they had done earlier. There were interpolations and admittedly before the request for the grant of pension was made the appellant had not been on his post for a number of years. He had produced certificates of different Medical Officers for whatever their worth. The order of termination mentions his absconsion. It was alleged from the respondent side that he was abroad making money. However, the suggestion came to be denied. Be that as it may even if computed from 1961 up. To the year 1984 the 25 years are not there.
In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.