1. M. SALEHM CHAUDBRY (CHAIRMAN): In this appeal the appellant is aggrieved of the order of respondent, refusing to grant him pension, after the retirement from the service of Health Department, Government of the Punjab. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant joined as a Junior Clerk in 1953 in the office of Direct-r of Health Services where he served upto 1964 when of the basis of serious complaint he was transferred to Multan out of Lahore Region. The complaints against him comprised of writing indecent and obscene letters to Dr. S. Z.
2. Khanum Inspectors, Health Services Lahore Region alleging scandals against her, which were calculated to bring her in disrepute. T he appellant instead of proceeding to Multan demanded advance T. A /D. A. as a pre-condition to travel to Multan The Department, however, refused to comply with this demand and the appellant did not proceed to Multan. The matter protracted for more than 5 years, and ultimately his name was struck off the strength of the Department. It was only on the intervention of the Provincial Government in July 1970 that he was allowed to resume duty, which he did on 1-7-1970 in the office of Medical Officer, B. C. G & T. B, at Lahore. It appears that under the pressure from the Martial Law Authorities the case of the appellant was referred to the S&GAD who though of the opinion that Director of Health Services, Lahore was competent to transfer him out of region but advised as safe course that he be transferred to Lahore. It is in this context that he was transferred to Lahore. However, on 15th June. 1971 he attained the age of 55 years when he was allowed to proceed on L. P. R. for 6 months. Its the meantime he was also proceeded against for the wilful absence and hr. Abdul Waheed of the Services Hospital was appointed as Enquiry Officer. However, the appellant did not participate in the enquiry and ultimately an ex Parse Enquiry Report was forward on 8-6-1972 by the Director Health Services, Punjab to the Governments in which he was held guilty, but it was recommended to the Provincial Government that the period of his absence namely, from 22-3-1964 to 30-7-1970 may be regularised in relaxation of rule 3.27, C. S. R., Punjab, Vol. I, Part I for the purposes of pension.
3. However, the disciplinary action against him was dropped as he had already. But it was intended that if he became eligible for pension. a cut in pension may be imposed as a matter of punishment due to big wilful absence. The case was referred to the Government. After protracted correspondence on 23-4-1974 the Secretary Health asked the Director Health Services Punjab in accordance with the advice of the S&GAD, that in the first instance the nature of the absence of the appellant be decided viz. whether the period was to be treated as wilful absence or extraordinary leave without pay. The Director Health re-examined the case and decided that it was a case of defiance of superior officer's orders. According to him the appellant bad no right to demand and get advance T. A /D. A as a pre-condition to travel on transfer. The Government was accordingly informed by him on 28-6-1974. The Secretary Health, however, again recommended the case of the appellant for relaxation under rule 3.27 of the C. S. R. Punjab, Vol. I, Part I which recommendation was turned down by the S&GAD, on 21-11-1974, on the ground that no relaxation could be granted in the case of wilful absence. The appellant was informed accordingly. He preferred this appeal before us on 21st June 1975 against the aforesaid decision.
4. The case of the appellant before us was that the permission of the Government in the Health Department to allow him to resume duty on 30th June 1970 was tantamount to grant-him relaxation under rule 3.27 of S. C. R Punjab, Vol. I, Part I and thus he automatically became eligible for the pension. The appellant also argued that this was not a case of new appoint--ment but continuation of the old assignment and thus therefore no relaxation is involved. The appellant has, however, not produced any authority for the contention advanced by him. The provisions of rule 3.27, C. S. R , Punjab, Vol. I, Part I are reproduced below for the facility of reference: "Unless a competent authority, in view of the special circumstances of the case, otherwise determines, after five years' continuous absence from duty, elsewhere than on foreign service in Pakistan, whether with or without leave, a Government servant ceases to be in Government employ."
5. Our reading of the above rule does not load to the conclusion canvases by the appellant.
6. Admittedly he has been away from duty for more than years. No leave of any kind has been sanctioned to him so far. In the circumstances of tare case, the appellant ceased to be Government servant under the aforesaid Rule on the expiry of the prescribed period. In oar via, an expressed relaxation was necessary. We are not in agreement with the contention of the appellant that the order of the Government allowing the appellant to resume duty in June, 1970 was tantamount to the grant o relaxation contemplated under rule 3.27 above. In our opinion it was necessary that a relaxation should have been granted after the due application of the mind by the competent authority. Since relaxation has not been granted, we have Dot shown in law in which we have the authority to force the authorities concerned to grant the requisite relaxation, We also find that D. H. S. is not the competent authority to grant relaxation under rule 3.27 6 of C. S. R. The appellant also relied upon the facts of his confirmation as Junior Clerk vide order dated 31-5-71 effective from 1-9-57, fixation o seniority on 15-2-71 and finally the letter dated 9-9-71 issued by D.
7. O. S. requiring the appellant to get his pension papers completed. We do not find that any of above contentions of the appellant advances his case any further. Seniority, confirmation and L. P. R. have no bearing upon the entitlement of the appellant to pension. Similarly the letter dated, 9-9-71 was nothing more than a procedural direction to complete papers if the pension was otherwise admissible. Thus there is no substance in any of the conten--tions above.
8. Under the circumstances, we do not find any force in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine.