1991 PLP 1654 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 23‑1‑1990 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 211(L)/87(Old)/362(R)/89(New) filed by the respondent, allowing the same and setting aside the order of retirement dated 14‑10‑1986.

2. The facts to be noted are that the respondent joined WAPDA on 17‑10‑1962 as a Junior Engineer. He was promoted as a Superintending Engineer in 1976. He was sent on deputation to Nespak in pursuance of an order dated 28‑1‑1.984, the original period of one year was extended for a further period of two years. While the respondent was still on deputation, he received the aforesaid order dated 14‑10‑1986 passed by the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 3(b) of Pakistan Wapda Employees (Retirement) Rules, 1979, retiring the respondent with effect from 14‑10‑1986 on attaining the age of 55 years in public interest. It appears that against the above order, respondent made an appeal on 30‑11‑11986, but prior to the making of the above appeal on 21‑10‑1986 he applied for L.P.R. with the permission to serve Nespak (Pvt.) Limited which permission was accorded by the petitioner by an order dated 15‑1‑1987. However, prior to the above order, the respondent's aforesaid appeal was rejected by the Chairman, WAPDA and the same was conveyed by a letter dated 16‑12‑1986 sent by the Director Administration (Water) to the respondent. After that, after the expiry of nearly 207 days of the limitation period, the respondent riled aforesaid Service Appeal which was allowed on the basis of judgment of the Appellate Shariat Bench of this Court reported in P L D 1987 S C

304. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal. We have heard Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, and we are inclined to grant leave to consider the following questions:‑ (i) whether the respondent after having availed of L.P.R. and the permission to continue to work with Nespak had acquiesced to the order of retirement; (ii) whether the respondent's case was past and closed transaction to which ratio of the case of Pakistan and others v. Public‑at‑large and others (P L D 1987 SC 304) could not have been applied and the relevant ratio applicable to the respondent's case is contained in the case of Laiq Ahmed Siddiqi v. Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and others reported in 1989 S C M R 369; and (iii) whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of more than 200 days. Leave is accordingly granted. The appeal shall be prepared on the basis of the present record with the direction to the parties to file additional documents necessary for the disposal of the appeal. A.A./W‑86/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.