Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 362 of 1982, decided on 12th January, 1983.
(From the judgment dated 15m2‑1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 150/1302 of 1974).
-----Art. 212(3) read with Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) Retirement from service‑Leave to appeal ‑ Granted to Provincial Government to consider contention that civil servant's request for retirement having been already accepted his subsequent withdrawal of such request was of no consequence.
Muhammad Khan v. Pakistan P L D 1958 Kar. 75 ref.
M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 12th January, 1983,
Mian Noor‑uz‑Zaman Ahmad Qureshi respon dent, who was Superintendent Jail, Bahawalpur, sought for domestic reasons, retirement from service by letter dated 13‑1‑1972, in which he pointed out that although he had not put in the required period of service qualifying for pension he "be sanctioned premature retirement as a special case with effect from 1‑6‑1972 and grant of four months leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 1‑2‑1972". The Governor, by relaxing the rule, approved his retirement with full pension benefits and signed the notification of acceptance of the resignation on 16‑9‑1972. The notification which was released on 28‑9‑1972 was published on 6‑10‑1972, but before that, i. e., on 2‑10‑1972, the respondent retracted his earlier request. This was not accepted and he was relieved on 11‑12‑1972. The respondent, who had first resorted to a civil suit, later, came in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 15‑2‑1982, the Tribunal allowed the appeal declaring the notification to be void ab initio and directing that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service.
2. In the Tribunal's view, the Governor had no jurisdiction to relax the rule, that as the respondent had sought retirement with effect from 1‑6‑1972 "it was incumbent upon the Government once again to ask the appellant whether he was still desirous to be retired despite the date so fixed by him had expired", that "it was also necessary for the Government to tell the appellant that his request was not in accordance with the rules and was being resisted by the Finance Department as well as S & G A D, therefore, it was fill the more necessary to make sure whether the appellant was so fed up with service or was under such a big strain of circumstances that he lead once for all made up his mind not to continue", and that the respondent had the right to withdraw his earlier request before the issue or communication to him of the notification.
3. Mr. M. M. Saeed Beg, appearing for the petitioner, that is, the Provincial Government, submits, inter alia, that the respondent's request for retirement having been accepted on 16‑9‑1972, his subsequent withdrawal of his request on 2‑10‑1972, was of no consequence. For this, he relied on Muhammad Khan v. Pakistan (PLD 1958 Kar.75). The point requires consideration and accordingly we grant leave to appeal. The order of the Tribunal Shall continue to remain suspended.
Leave to appeal granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer