NOOR AHMAD Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FAISALABAD

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Noor Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order passed by the D. F. O., Faisalabad on 26th November, 1981 by which he has been directed to proceed on L. P. R. till 14th December, 1982 and retire thereafter. He has impleaded D. F. O., Faisalabad and Con servator of Forests, Sargodba, as respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined Forest Department in December, 1949 and rendered more than 30 years service in the Department. The appellant learnt from source that a civil servant who retires after 30, years service are given more than 10% pension. Thinking this concession as advantageous to him, he made an application to the D. F. O., Faisalabad that if 10% pension is admissible to him under the rules the appellant is willing to proceed on L. P. R. What actually happened in his case is, that the D. F. O. without taking in consideration the conditions mentioned in the application, passed an order Annexure D asking him to proceed on L. P. R. The appellant immediately after receiving the said order, moved the D. F. O., for cancellation of the same. His application was recommended by the S. D. F. O. Toba Tek Singh in view of his good record of service. He again moved the S. D. F. O., Toba Tek Singh for cancellation of his L. P. R. and the same was recommended. The appellant then made a representation to the Conservator of Forest, respondent No. 2 after he was disappointed by the attitude of respondent No. 1 but the same is still pending. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney represented by the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

4. It is on the record that the appellant moved for L. P. R. with the request that 10% increase in his pension and moved for cancellation of the same immediately when it was revealed to him that his request was not acceded to. In view of these two established facts the argument of the learned counsel is liable to succeed which is based on the verdict of this Tribunal given in the judgment of Nooruz Zaman v. Inspector‑General Prisons etc. dated 15th February, 1982 in which this Tribunal has held that if a civil servant moves for his L. P. R. or asks for his retirement otherwise but later on due to change in the circumstances he withdraws the same while in service, he can be permitted to do so. The law so laid down by this Tribunal would be applicable in the case of the appellant as well, which itself is based on Jai Ram v. Union of India, Full Bench Supreme Court of India A I R 1954 S C 584, A I R 1956 All. 153, P L D 1973 Quetta 4, P L D 1981 Kar. 56 at p. 60, P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 504 and P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 105.

5. In view of the said judgment of this Tribunal we proceed to accept the appeal of the appellant with the direction that he should be considered in service from the date he changed his mind to withdraw his application of L. P. R. However, there will be no order as to costs.

M. I. Appeal accepted.