| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2626 2024 SLD 2626 2024 PLC 198 |
Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal
Service Appeal No.27 of 2015, heard on 16th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 16th September, 2022.
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, Chairman and Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, Member
Appellant in person. Zawar Ahmad Sheikh Barrister Ameer Abbas Ali Khan, Assistant Advocate General for
Respondent.
Service Appeal No.27 of 2015, heard on 16th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 16th September, 2022.
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, Chairman and Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, Member
Appellant in person. Zawar Ahmad Sheikh Barrister Ameer Abbas Ali Khan, Assistant Advocate General for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI
VS
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE through Registrar
Law: Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974
Section: 12
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S.12---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules), 1973, R.4(b)(i)---Compulsory retirement---Object, purpose and scope---Civil servant was aggrieved of notification issued by authorities retiring him from service pre-maturely---Validity---Object of S.12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, is to develop efficiency and discipline and achieve good governance in civil service---Civil servant who has served a considerable length of 20 years with a minimum level of efficiency, loses legitimate expectancy to perform better in future and only wants to stay with the sort of performance, which may be in his / her interest but certainly not in the interest of public---Basic difference between retirement under S. 12(i) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, is that retirement in terms of former provision is not a punishment and civil servant gets all service benefits without any stigma, whereas compulsory retirement under the latter provision is a punishment---Order under S. 12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, is not interfered with as satisfaction of competent authority regarding efficiency and performance of an employee is not to be substituted by Court or Tribunal with its own opinion on the basis of analysis of record---In the present case first condition of completion of twenty years' service was not satisfied, thus, impugned retirement Notification could not have been issued---Justiciability of S. 12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, without satisfying requirement mentioned therein were not proper to deprive a person from his / her legitimate right of service as source of earning---High Court reinstated the civil servant into service by setting aside show cause notice and retirement notification---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Qadeer and 2 others v. Secretary, Defence Production Division, Government of Pakistan and others 2003 SCMR 1804; Chairman, Central Board of Film Censors, Islamabad and another v. S. Muhammad Ali Shah 2004 PLC (C.S.) 707; Atta Rabbani v. Secretary Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 3 others 2006…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492