FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This appeal with leave of the Court in service matter is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-1-1992 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 153(R) of 1991.
2. Facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal briefly stated are that Rehmat Khan, respondent was serving in appellants' Department as Sub-- Postmaster, Kharian Cantt. When he was found suffering from an eye-disease which rendered him unfit for the proper and efficient discharge of his duties. The respondent was, therefore, to appear before a Medical Board. Accordingly he appeared on 30-7-1983 it declared him unfit for further useful discharge of his duties. A Standing Invaliding Committee issued on Invaliding -Certificate declaring him permanent incapacitated for further service in the Department. Neither challenge the same nor apply for review of his case by the second medical board as required by F.R. 10-A(c). Consequently the respondent retired from service with effect from 30-7-1983 and vide order dated 16-8-1983 the respondent was allowed "invalid pension". The entire dues including pension was received.
3. It was on 16-2-1985 that respondent made an application to the Postmaster-General, Northern, Circle, Rawalpindi for arrangement of his medical examination for the purposes of enabling him to rejoin the department because his eyesight had improved. His request was turned down vide order dated 6-8-1985 and on his repeated applications the Director-General informed him by letter dated 27-8-1987 that his request for reinstatement into service could not be accepted. Ultimately the respondent made an application to the Prime Minister on 8-12-1988 on which his case was referred to the Review Committee who recommended his medical examination by a Medical Board to be constituted by the Director-General Health. The Medical Board so constituted examined respondent and found him fit for duty as his vision had since improved. After the report his case for reinstatement was considered by the Establishment Division and rejected on the ground of it being hopelessly barred by time by an order dated 11-3-1991. This order was appealed against under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 11-1-1992 ordered his reinstatement into service with all back benefits with the direction to treat the period of his absence as if he was on duty. He was to return the pensionary benefits as per rules.
4. Leave was granted that the provision of F.R. 10-A(c)(i), upon which reliance has been placed by the Service Tribunal, was not attracted to the case and that the same could be invoked soon after the retirement and not after such a long time after availing of the pensionary benefits etc. In addition to the above objection it was contended before us that the Federation of Pakistan being a necessary party and having not been impleaded as party in the appeal, no order of reinstatement could have been passed. That respondent 'was informed of rejection of his prayer on 16-8-1983, therefore, his appeal filed on 24-4-1991 seeking reinstatement was hopelessly barred by time. That the constitution of the second Medical Board at the instance of the Review Committee was illegal.
That reinstatement of an employee could only be ordered in public interest which is not the case.
5. We have first to take up the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners; whether an employee invalidated and incapacitated during tenure of his service can be re-employed if subsequently at any stage he is declared and certified that he can efficiently discharge his duties even if he has availed of his invalidity pension and dues. The learned Tribunal in its judgment has relied on Fundamental Rule 10, section 1, Chapter III which deals with general condition of service and it provides that after a Government servant is certified to be permanently invalidated to efficient discharge of his duties by the authority concerned such Government servant may within 7 days of the receipt by him of the official intimation of the finding of the medical authority apply to the Director-General Health for review of his case by a second Medical Board. Admittedly in the present case respondent did not challenge the decision of the medical authority and received his invalidity pension etc. However, when subsequently his vision improved and he found fit for efficiently discharging his duties that he made efforts to be examined by the medical board in which he ultimately succeeded. He was certified by the medical board appointed by the competent authority fit for discharging his duties in the service. Rule 519 of Chapter XXI of the Civil Service Regulations dealing with the "re-employment of pensioners" reads as follows: "After Invalid Pension:
519. There is no bar to the re-employment of an officer who has regained health after obtaining invalid pension, or if an officer is invalided as being incapacitated for employment in a particular branch of the service, to his re-employment in some other branch of the service. The rules in such a case as to refunding gratuity, drawing pension, and counting service, the same as in the case of re--employment after compensation pension:"
6. The learned Tribunal has also relied on Nasim Akhtar v. Superintendent .Of Post Offices and others, a judgment in (Appeal No. 370(R) of 1984) by the Tribunal, the facts whereof are identical with the present case. In the precedent case Nasim Akhtar initially declared medically unfit remained out of service for 7 years, was ordered to be re-instated into service subject to re- examination and medical fitness by the Board.
7. With regard to the non-impleadment of Federation of Pakistan it is not denied that the appellant contested the appeal before the learned Tribunal on merits without any objection, therefore, at this stage no such objection can be raised specially when no prejudice is caused. The objection with regard to bar of limitation has also been properly dealt with by the learned Tribunal. For all these reasons there being no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Tribunal the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.