2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑ Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) granted on ground of ailment after rendering 30 years service‑‑‑Civil servant after three months applied for cancellation of remaining LPR and his reinstatement in service‑‑‑Authority refused such request of civil servant, but Service Tribunal reinstated him in service‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑LPR applied for after rendering 30 years service could be obtained after 25 years of qualifying service‑‑‑Civil servant stood retired after attaining age of superannuation, thus, he could not be reinstated in violation of policy of Punjab Government circulated through Letter No.F‑SR‑III‑60‑79‑1, dated 6‑7‑1981‑‑‑Triubnal had ignored the difference between LPR and medical leave and prevalent policy‑‑‑Supreme Court set aside impugned judgment being illegal. (c) Civil service‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) and medical leave‑‑ Distinction‑‑‑Both are two different kinds of leave and one cannot be substituted with the other having different object and purpose‑‑‑Main object of LPR is to provide a fair opportunity to an employee to make necessary preparation for retirement. (d) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Reinstatement in service after retirement on attaining age of superannuation‑ ‑‑Scope‑‑‑Civil servant cannot be reinstated in service after attaining such age. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz‑ur -Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th May, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 22‑1‑2001 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been accepted and order, dated 31‑3‑1999 set aside whereby the representation, dated 21‑4‑1998 requesting for cancellation of LPR was rejected but no back‑benefits were granted by the Service Tribunal, hence his petition.

2. Precisely stated that facts of the case are that petitioner was Sub Inspector of Police who applied for LPR on the ground of ailment on 17‑11‑1997 after having rendered 30 years service which was allowed by the competent authority by means of order, dated 17‑1‑1998 upto 18‑1‑1999 i.e. the date of superannuation. The petitioner proceeded on LPR and after about three months made a representation for cancellation of remaining LPR and his reinstatement in service with all back‑benefits which was turned down by the Inspector‑General of Police Punjab vide order, dated 21‑3‑1999 which has been set aside by the learned Service Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner is that back benefits could not have been denied to him.

3. Heard Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner at length. The case of petitioner is that LPR was sought on account of ailment which could have been got cancelled as a matter of right after improvement and recovery of health. The prime contention of the learned Advocate Supreme Court is that the LPR was got sanctioned on account of ailment and under compelling circumstances and it was, not a voluntary act which appears to be devoid of merit for the reason that the LPR was applied after having referred 30 years' service which could have even obtained after 25 years of qualifying service and main object whereof is to provide a fair opportunity to an employee to make necessary preparation for retirement. It would be a futile and academic exercise to consider as to whether it could have been got cancelled or not as the petitioner stood retired on 18‑1‑1999 after attaining the‑age of superannuation and by no stretch of imagination he could have been reinstated in violation of the policy circulated by the Government of the Punjab by means of letter No.FD‑SR‑III‑60‑79‑1, dated 6‑7‑1981. The LPR and medical leave are two different kinds of L leave and one cannot be substituted with the other having different object and purpose. The learned Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate the controversy in its true perspective by ignoring the difference between two kinds of leave and prevalent policy. It is also ignored by the learned Service Tribunal that how an employ could be reinstated in service after attaining the age of superannuation. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the verdict given by the learned Service Tribunal is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside and the petition being merit less is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M‑932/S Leave refused.