1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its General Manager, Headquarters Office, Lahore and others
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its General Manager, Headquarters Office, Lahore and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its General Manager, Headquarters Office, Lahore and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 24‑3‑1994, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 2(L)/94). Civil service‑‑‑
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 212(3)‑‑‑Application for premature retirement ‑‑‑Withdrawal of such application ‑‑‑Effect ‑‑‑Civil service submitting application on 1‑1‑1992, seeking premature retirement with effect from 2‑4‑1992‑‑‑Civil servant subsequently submitting another application on of his application for premature retirement ‑‑‑Civil servant was retired on 2‑4‑1992 ‑‑‑Validity ‑‑‑Before the order of retirement, civil servant had already submitted his application which was received by competent authority on 21‑3‑1992‑‑‑Civil servant was authorized to withdraw his application for premature retirement before its acceptance by competent authority ‑‑‑Civil servant having been retired after the receipt of his subsequent application for withdrawal of his application seeking premature retirement, his retirement after the receipt of his withdrawal letter needed examination‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th May, 1994. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 24‑3‑1994.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner submitted an application on 1‑1‑1992, seeking pre‑mature retirement with effect from 2‑4‑1992. The petitioner submitted another application, on 19‑2‑1992, to respondent No.4, for withdrawal of his application for premature retirement. The petitioner was retired with effect from 2‑4‑1992. The petitioner's departmental representation, against the order of his retirement, was dismissed by the competent authority. He approached the Federal Service Tribunal, but his appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment,
3. According to the Tribunal, the petitioner's withdrawal application was received by the competent authority on 21‑3‑1992 i.e. after the acceptance of his earlier request. Under the law, once an application for retirement is accepted, it cannot be withdrawn subsequently. The case of the respondents is that the withdrawal application was submitted by the petitioner on 19‑3‑1992, but a back date was inserted wrongly by overwriting and interpolation.
4. We have seen the record. The forwarding letter (at page 30 of the paper book) with the application of withdrawal of premature retirement of the petitioner was endorsed by the Station Superintendent P.R. Sukkur, on 19‑2‑1992, therefore, prima facie it is wrong to contend on behalf of the respondent that some interpolation has been made. The order of retirement passed by the Divisional Officer is dated 12‑4‑1992. Before the order of retirement the petitioner had already submitted his application which, according to the Tribunal, was received by the competent authority on 21‑3‑1992. As per letter No.23/3/81‑SV(B), dated 12‑4‑1981, a Government servant may withdraw his application for premature retirement before its acceptance by the competent authority. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioner was retired on 16‑3‑1992. The order of retirement issued by the competent authority is dated 12‑4‑1992 (page 62 of the paper book), therefore, the petitioner moved his application before the order of retirement passed by the Divisional Office. Leave is granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is in service. If that is so, the status quo shall be maintained. A.A./M‑2114/S Leave granted.