MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through General Manager, Lahore and 3 others
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal concerning his premature retirement from Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether the appellant had validly and timely withdrawn his notice of premature retirement prior to its acceptance by the competent authority, and whether the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal letter was suspicious, bearing interpolated and backdated entries, and that it had been received by the department only after the acceptance of the premature retirement request. The Court also affirmed that the Divisional Superintendent was competent to order the premature retirement under the relevant schedule of powers. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an employee can withdraw a notice of premature retirement after its acceptance by the competent authority?
- Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal barred by time when filed after pursuing remedies in inappropriate forums beyond the limitation period?
- Whether the Divisional Superintendent of Pakistan Railways is competent to order premature retirement under the Schedule of Powers?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance
' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment and order, dated 24-3-1994 whereby an appeal preferred by the appellant calling in question his premature retirement from service was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this appeal are that on 1-1-1992 the appellant while serving as Commercial Superintendent (Goods) in Pakistan Railways at Sukkur, applied for premature retirement with effect from 2-4-1992 on account of domestic problems. The facts of the appellant is that before the expiry of the notice, dated 1-1-1992 due to changed circumstances he withdrew the notice requesting premature retirement through an application, dated 19-2-1992.
According to the appellant he was competent to withdraw the request of premature retirement before its acceptance by the competent Authority. According to the appellant he had handed over the withdrawal letter to respondent No,3, Station Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur on 19-2- 1992 and because, by that time, the notice period had not expired nor the Authority had acted to order his premature retirement, therefore, he was well within his right to withdraw his request for premature retirement. On the other hand, the case of the respondent department is that it had not received any withdrawal letter and, therefore, the competent Authority had passed an order on 12- 4-1992 allowing the request of the appellant for premature retirement and the said order'was communicated to the appellant.
3. The Federal Service Tribunal, after perusal of the record, came to the conclusion that after receipt of the communication, dated 12-4-1992 the appellant made a belated departmental representation on 8-9-1993 long after the expiry of the limitation period during which time he kept on litigating before the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur and, subsequently, also filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Labour Court. On this ground as well, the Federal Service Tribunal held the appeal of the appellant barred by time. In addition thereto, the Tribunal also probed into the merit of the case.
4. We have heard the counsel for both the side at length. Per record of this case as produced in the Federal Service Tribunal the appellant se-ved 3 months notice on 1-1-1992 requesting for premature retirement from service with effect from 2-4-1992. The said application was accepted by the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur on 16-3-1992 and it was communicated to the appellant vide letter, dated 12-4-1992. According to the respondent department letter for withdrawal of the request was received in the office of respondent No,2 on 21-3-1992 after the acceptance of the appellant's request for premature retirement. It was vehemently contended by respondent No,2 that the department had not received any letter on 19-2-1992 as alleged by the appellant and, in fact, according to the respondents, the appellant had given the said letter on 19- 3-1992, but a back date was inserted by overwriting and interpolation. We have also seen photostat copy of the letter, which was handed over to the Station Superintendent, Sukkur, who forwarded the same to the competent Authority. On the corner of this letter, the forwarding date is 21-3-1992 whereas underneath the signatures of the appellant the date inserted as 19-2-1992. Similarly, at the bottom the date inserted is 19-3-1992. Obviously, this letter seeking withdrawal of request for premature retirement is suspicious. The finding arrived at by the Federal Service Tribunal on this score cannot be interfered with. Furthermore, no question of public importance has been raised so as to justify interference by this Court. In addition thereto, we also do not find any merit to the effect that the Divisional Superintendent, Sukkur was not competent to order premature retirement of the appellant. Our attention was drawn to the terms of item 42 of the Schedule of Powers of Divisional Superintendents under which he was competent to have ordered the premature retirement of the appellant.
5. Consequently, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.