| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3001 = 1981 SLD 3001 = 1981 PLC 442 |
Service Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. 79 of 1979, decided on 10th November, 1980.
Presented By: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Chairman, Walayat Ahmad Khan and G. A. Mughal, Members
Appeal No. 79 of 1979, decided on 10th November, 1980.
Presented By: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Chairman, Walayat Ahmad Khan and G. A. Mughal, Members
IMTIAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Section: 13 (1)
Sind Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973) S. 13 (1)-Retirement-Order of retirement cancelled by depart mental authority on coming to know period of 25 years of service qualifying for pension having not yet been completed-On reinstate ment intervening period ordered to be treated as leave of kind due and same period reckoned as leave extraordinary without pay--- Powers of Government requiring a civil servant to proceed on leave in public interest, held, could not he invoked without show-cause notice-Case. held, not covered by such powers and entire period intervening between wrong retirement and re-instatement, held further, to be treated as duty instead of leave due. ORDER MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Imtiaz Muhammad Khan 'was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police when he was retired from service by Superintendent of Police. Hyderabad under section 13 (l) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 in public interest, with effect from 1st June, 1976. Appellant Imtiaz Muhammad Khan made a representation to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Hyderabad against retirement on completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension. His representation was rejected against him. The Accountant- General, Sind, Karachi however pointed out to the Department that the appellant had not completed 25 years' service qualifying for pension because the appellant while serving in the enforcement Police had remained under suspension from 16th July, 1949 to 4th March, 1951 and this period had not been regularized when he was re-instated. He had also remained on extraordinary leave for 2 years, 1 month and 4 days. Since the order of retirement was bad and was cancelled and the appellant was re-instated…