COMMANDANT PAKISTAN MILITARY ACADEMY, ABBOTTABAD vs NAZRAN
This review petition concerns the finality of a government servant's request for premature retirement. The core legal question was whether a government servant retains the right to withdraw an application for premature retirement after it has been formally accepted by the competent authority. The Supreme Court reviewed its previous judgment, which had relied on established precedents including Govt. of Sindh v. Raja Muhammad Inayat Khan (2000 SCMR 1964). The Court held that while a government servant may withdraw a request for premature retirement before its acceptance, once the competent authority has formally accepted the request, the servant loses the authority to withdraw it. Applying this principle to the facts, where the respondent's application for premature retirement was accepted on 12-7-2009, the Court determined that the subsequent application for withdrawal was ineffective. Consequently, the Court accepted the review petition, set aside the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment, and upheld the petitioner's position that the retirement stood finalized upon acceptance.
- Can a government servant withdraw an application for premature retirement after it has been accepted by the competent authority?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to review its own judgment?
- At what point does a request for premature retirement become irrevocable for a government servant?
- Article 188, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Instant review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21-1-2011 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court has non suited the petitioner relying upon para No,2 of entry at SI.No,6, of the Esta Code under the caption "withdrawal of application for premature retirement" read with the judgment in the case of Govt. Of Sindh, through Secretary S&GAD v. Raja Muhammad Inayat Khan (2000 SCM R 1964) whereas ratio decidendi of the judgment is that once the request for premature retirement is accepted then the withdrawal is not possible. To substantiate his plea he has also placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Naseer v. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and another (2005 SCM R 1928), N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology v. Syed Ashfaq Hussaini Shah (2006 SCM R 453) and Muhammad Nisar Gul Khan v. District Coordination Officer and others (2008 SCM R 1078).
According to him, in view of the error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment be reviewed and as a consequence whereof the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 10-11-2010, be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent stated that undoubtedly he applied for premature retirement on 12-7-2009 whereas he applied for withdrawal of his request on 19-1- 2010, therefore, according to him as per para No,2 of Entry at SI. No,6, of the Esta Code the competent authority was bound to give effect to it by allowing to withdraw the application for premature retirement; As no order was passed on the same, therefore, he had to approach the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
4. It is to be noted that the Service Tribunal had also placed reliance on the case of Raja Muhammad Inayat Khan (ibid) and on the basis of the same, has granted relief as was prayed for, to the respondent.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties, we have gone through the judgment relied upon by the Service Tribunal thoroughly. The ratio decidendi of the judgments is that the Government Servant may withdraw his request for the premature retirement before its acceptance by the competent authorityApplying the law, laid down in this case and in view of the admission made by the learned counsel for respondent that the application for premature retirement was accepted vide order dated 12-7-2009, copy of which has been placed on record, therefore, we are of the opinion that no sooner application for premature retirement was accepted, the petitioner had no authority to withdraw the same on the basis of subsequent application made for withdrawal of the previous application for premature retirement after its acceptance.
6. Under Article 188 of the Constitution, we accept the -review petition as a result whereof judgment dated 21-1-2011 passed by this Court is reviewed, the petition filed by the petitioner (Commandant Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul), is accepted by converting the same into appeal and allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 10-11- 2010, is set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Cited by 1 case
- Nazir Ahmed vs Honorable Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan through Registrar and another 2024 PLJ Quetta 92, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1254