SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD AND COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT Versus SHAMOUN BAHADUR

ORDER

1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑‑ The respondent was born on 11th March, 1919, and he joined Government service in the Food Deptt. on 5‑1‑1946. He was an Establishment Assistant in Food Department,

2. On 20‑7‑70 on personal grounds he applied for retirement on completion of 25 years' qualifying service and for proceeding on leave preparatory to retirement of one year w.e.f. 1‑8‑70. The Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Food Department, by his Order dated 5‑8‑70 allowed the respondent to proceed in LPR for one year from 10‑8‑79 to 9‑8‑71 with 10‑8‑71 as his date of retirement. It may be noted that at the time of proceeding on LPR the respondent was in 52nd year of age and was about 5 months short of 25 years'

3. After the respondent had proceeded on LPR objection was raised by the Accountant‑General, Punjab, that at the time of proceeding on LPR the respondent had not yet completed 25 years of qualifying service and under the rules he ‑could not be granted LPR and, therefore, his retirement was not in order.

4. It appears that on 3‑6‑71 the respondent withdrew his earlier request for retirement on the ground of a change for better in his personal circumstances. Thereupon, the Secretary Food Department on 22‑12‑71 ordered that the LPR granted to the respondent be modified. He cancelled his order dated 5‑8‑70 and the respondent was retired w.e.f. 6‑1‑71. By the same order the LPR granted to the respondent was converted into 4 months leave on full pay from 10‑8‑70 to 9‑12‑70 and 28 days leave on half pay from 10‑12‑70 to 6‑1‑71.

5. The respondent challenged the order dated 22‑12‑71 of the Food Department before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was accepted on 24‑3‑77. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that in his application dated 4‑10‑71 addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Govt. of Punjab the respondent had said that he should be allowed to resume his duty and to continue his service till the date of superannuation and this request could not be turned down. It was also contended that the Order passed by the Secretary, Food Department was against the Rules. Reliance was placed on P L D 1973 Quetta 4. This plea was accepted by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the respondent had completed qualifying service for retirement. It was not open to him to withdraw his request but it was open for the Department not to accept the respondent's request made later on. The learned counsel further urged that even if there was no rule on the point, it was the discretion of the Department to decide whether to allow the respondent to retire from service or not retire.

7. The contentions of the learned counsel require consideration.

8. Leave is granted. Appeal to be heard at an early date before vacation.

9. M.Y.H./S‑159/S Leave granted.