' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The facts of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant joined service as Overseer in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab on 1-10-1947. His services were terminated due to reduction with effect from 28-2-1959. He joined the Settlement Department on 21-11-1959 and served there till his services were terminated on 31-5-1961 as department was disbanded. He was appointed as Overseer in WAPDA with effect from 1-6-1961 and while he was working as Junior Engineer he retired from service on superannuation with effect from 31-7-1984 and his pension was sanctioned. He filed Appeal No, 338(R)/1992 before this Tribunal in which he prayed that his previous service rendered in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab Government and the Settlement Department may be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. This appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 19-1-1993 with direction to WAPDA to review the case of the appellant in view of the observations made in the judgment.
However, his request was rejected. The appellant after filing departmental appeal and awaiting decision thereon for 90 days, has again preferred this appeal before the Tribunal with the following prayers:
(1) The impugned order WAPDA declining to count the previous service rendered by the appellant for purposes of pension may kindly be set aside.
(2) The service rendered by the appellant in the Settlement Department and the Irrigation Department be ordered to be counted for purposes of pension by condoning the break of 8 months and 20 days between the dates of termination of service of the appellant by the Irrigation Department and his joining the Settlement Department.
(3) The AGPR, Islamabad and the A.-G., Punjab, Lahore be directed to verify the respective service of the appellant for purposes of pension and to accept necessary charge therefor.
2. We have heard Mr. Aminur Rehman Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant at length. It is argued that the service rendered by the appellant in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab Government and the Settlement Department be counted towards pensionary benefits under CSR- 371-A; and the Government of the Punjab be directed to sanction pension for their share.
3. Mr. Muhammad Siddiq, Accounts Officer representing the A.-G., Punjab submitted that the appellant has also filed service appeal in the Punjab Service Tribunal for the same cause of action and pensionary benefits for the period he served the Government of the Punjab being a Provincial employee and this appeal is not competent as he is not a civil servant for the purpose of this Tribunal. But in these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant had no reply to controvert this stand, and he only submitted that he had no instructions. In such a situation, we cannot disbelieve the statement of Mr. Muhammad Siddiq, Accounts Officer and as such when the claim of the appellant against the Punjab Government is pending before the Punjab Service Tribunal, this appeal to that extent is not competent before this Tribunal.
4. With regard to service rendered under the Settlement Department, the appellant served the Settlement Department only for a period of one year and 6 months and under the rules five years service is reckonable for the purpose of pension and as such this short period of service could not be reckoned for pension, and further that, as argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government, service under the Settlement Department at that time, was not pensionable, therefore, this claim is not tenable.
5. Another aspect of this appeal is that the appellant retired from service with effect from 31-7-1984 from WAPDA and got the pensionary benefits and settled all dues and after eight or nine years he has come for pensionary benefits which is unjustified and he should have sought this relief at the time of retirement or during his service with WAPDA and his grievances whatsoever could have been looked into by the department or by the Tribunal at that time and it is too late now. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that directions be issued to WAPDA to submit the case of the appellant to the Punjab Government. We do not agree with this submission as the case of the appellant has already been considered by WAPDA and no fresh directions can be issued when the appeal does not merit consideration.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.