' HIDAYATULLAH KHAN (MEMBER).---This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of respondent No, 2 dated 28-12-1992, by virtue of which the retirement of the appellant was cancelled with the direction to rejoin duty, with further order that the appellant be treated as absent from duty with effect from 1-1-1992 to the date of issue of impugned order and the same has been treated as extraordinary leave without pay while departmental appeal of the appellant against the impugned order was not replied by respondent No,
1. It has been prayed that the impugned order be set aside, the retirement and pension of the appellant may be restored as the appellant has completed 25 years' service and he may be allowed full pay with other benefits for the period from 1-1-1992 to the date of issue of the impugned order.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Guage Reader vide order dated 1-6-1956. The appellant performed duties on various posts. The services of the appellant were regularised as Assistant Store Keeper vide order dated 29-7-1974. The appellant was further regularised as Surveyor Grade-II vide Notification dated 4-7-1977. After completion of his 25 years' service, the appellant submitted his case for the grant of pension to respondent No, 2, who passed the impugned order dated 28-12-1992 by holding that the appellant has allegedly not completed 25 years' service. Moreover, the period from 1-1-1992 to the issue of the impugned order was treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal but the same has not been responded so far. Hence this appeal.
3. Respondents have filed their reply, contested the appeal and denied the claim of the appellant.
Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was a regular Government servant of the Irrigation Department. He was granted 365 days L.P.R. Vide order dated 30-12-1990 (Annexure F) with the memo. Of appeal, in which it has been clearly stated that the official will stand retired from service on 31-12-1991 (A.N.). Counsel for the appellant argued that it was that respondent department who was responsible for the grant of L.P.R. To the appellant before his superannuation. The appellant could not be held responsible for any objection raised later on by the Audit Department regarding the determination of his age of superannuation. He further stated that the impugned order of respondent No, 2, dated 28-12-1992 is liable to be set aside and the appellant should be held retired and his pension be restored as the appellant has completed 25 years of service.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Competent Authority i,e, A.-G. N.-W.F.P.
Had correctly observed that the appellant's appointment as Surveyor with effect from 1-6-1977 has to be treated as a fresh appointment. Since before, he was performing the duties in work charge capacity. His regularisation of past service as such was not permissible under the rules for determining the pension case of the appellant. Since the appellant had neither completed 25 years' service nor attained the age of superannuation, therefore, his premature retirement was not in accordance with rules. In compliance with the above, respondent No, 2 issued the impugned order, which is correct according to law.
6. The counsel for the appellant further contended that the delay in rejoining the service was not due to the fault of the appellant. He was entitled to full pay with all other benefits for the period from 1-1-1992 to the date of issue of the impugned order by respondent No,
2. Since it is a pecuniary loss to the appellant, the respondents were not justified in treating the period as extraordinary leave without pay.
7. Counsel for the respondents had no reply to this contention. No other issues were raised, nor any preliminary objections were made by the respondents in their replies to the memo. Of appeal and their counsel while arguing the case.
8. The Tribunal differs with the contention of the counsel for the appellant, to set aside the impugned order and hold the appellant retired alongwith restoration of his pension as no cogent/valid reasons were advanced to warrant interference in this respect, nor any law or rules were quoted in this respect.
9. The Tribunal however agrees with the contention that the appellant was entitled to full pay for the period from 1-1-1992 to the date of issue of the impugned order by respondent No, 2, which was passed on 28-12-1992. This delay of about one year was not due to any fault of the appellant but the responsibility rested with the respondents who were bound to act and keep/maintain the records of the officials of their department according to law, rules and standing Government Instructions.
10. The Tribunal, therefore, while partially accepting the appeal, allows full pay etc. To the appellant for the period from 1-1-1992 to the date of issue of the impugned order by respondent No,
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record.