MUHAMMAD NASEER vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MULTAN
The petitioner, a Foot-Constable, sought premature retirement and was granted 365 days of Leave Preparatory to Retirement (L.P.R.) by the competent authority. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner requested to withdraw his retirement application, which was rejected by the authority and subsequently upheld by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether a civil servant has a vested right to withdraw an application for premature retirement after it has been formally accepted by the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that once a request for premature retirement is accepted by the competent authority, it attains finality and becomes a past and closed transaction. The Court affirmed that there is no right to withdraw or modify such a request post-acceptance, as recall to duty thereafter would amount to re-employment requiring specific high-level approval. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the matter did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
- Can a civil servant withdraw an application for premature retirement after it has been accepted by the competent authority?
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to return to duty before the expiry of sanctioned Leave Preparatory to Retirement?
- Does the withdrawal of a request for premature retirement after acceptance constitute re-employment requiring approval of the Prime Minister?
- Rule 26, Leave Rules 1981
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' FALAK SHER, J.--- Petitioner a Foot-Constable having completed the qualifying 25 years of service for pension applied for premature retirement/L.P.R. Vide application dated 10-7-2002 which was allowed by the Competent Authority/District Police Officer, Sahiwal vide order dated 16-7-2002 granting 365 days leave preparatory to retirement in the following terms:-- Order Dated 16-7-2002 ' No,--- /Leave preparatory Retirement:-- ' Constable Muhammad Nasir No,112 of this District is hereby granted 365 days leave preparatory to retirement from 15-7-2002 to 14-7-2003 at his own request, as admissible under the rules.
' He will stand retired from service w,e,f, 15-7-2003."
' Subsequent whereto on 18-7-2002 he sought recalling of the opinion, which request was turned down on 8-5-2003.
2. Aggrieved whereby appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal was preferred which was declined vide the impugned judgment dated 30-10-2003 concluding as under:- "(4) I have considered the contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that in accordance with the Government instructions, a civil servant has the right to exercise opinion for retirement/L.P.R. With full responsibility and with utmost care. It is for this reason that a civil servant is required to apply at least three months before the actual date on which he intends to proceed on L.P.R. Or retirement. The appellant submitted of rules and consequently he was sanctioned L.P.R. And allowed to proceed on optional retirement. I also find that the appellant submitted request for L.P.R. On the ground that his domestic circumstances were bad and only after a week he submitted another application stating that his domestic circumstances were good.
There is obvious contradiction in the second application of the appellant domestic circumstances which compel a civil servant to seek retirement cannot be expected to change within one week. I further find that the appellant has no vested right in accordance with the terms and conditions of service to retire from L.P.R. Or withdraw his option of L.P.R. The appellant has stressed the fact that L.P.R. Being like leave was part of service and, therefore, the appellant had the right to come back. I am afraid, this contention of the appellant is rather self-negating. Under rule 26 of Leave Rules, 1981, a civil servant is not given the right to join duty before expiry of sanctioned leave. This right is given to the competent authority to allow or not allow a civil servant to return to duty before expiry of leave. I, therefore, find that the Authority acted in accordance with lawful powers conferred upon it while not permitting the appellant to return from L.P.R. Once the same had been sanctioned."
3. Discontented therewith captioned petition for leave to appeal has been recoursed reiterating the plea. Which we are afraid is ill-founded because in terms of Serial No,7, Chapter No,X of the ESTACODE styled as "Retirement and Re-employment", text whereof for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Sl. No,7 Recall to duty after premature retirement.--- Attention is invited to Establishment Division's O.M. No,23/2/81-CV(B) dated 12-4-1981 according to which option to withdraw or modify the request for premature retirement is available to a Government servant only before the said request is accepted by the Competent Authority. Requests for premature retirement once accepted by the Competent Authority cannot, repeat cannot, be allowed to be withdrawn or modified. Recall to duty after acceptance of request for voluntary retirement amounts to re-employment for which approval of the Prime Minister is required.
(2) Ministries/Divisions are requested to bring the above position to the notice of all concerned including their attached departments and subordinate offices, autonomous and semi- autonomous organizations, etc. To ensure strict compliance with the above stated provision."
' The option could be recalled prior to its acceptance by the Competent Authority, whereafter it attains finality and becomes a past and closed transaction. Independent thereof no substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the 1973 Constitution meriting interference in this extraordinary jurisdiction has been canvassed.
4. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of any substance fails and is hereby dismissed, leave declined..