2012 PLP 385 (SCMR)
COMMANDANT PAKISTAN MILITARY ACADEMY, ABBOTTABAD — Petitioner Versus NAZRAN ABBASI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 385 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | COMMANDANT PAKISTAN MILITARY ACADEMY, ABBOTTABAD — Petitioner Versus NAZRAN ABBASI and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 385 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 385 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 385 (SCMR) (COMMANDANT PAKISTAN MILITARY ACADEMY, ABBOTTABAD — Petitioner Versus NAZRAN ABBASI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- F.K. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nazir Ahmad Butta, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent stated that undoubtedly he applied for premature retirement on 12-7-2009 whereas he applied for withdrawal of his request on 19-1-2010, therefore, according to him as per para No.2 of Entry at Sl. No.6, of the Esta Code the competent authority was bound to give effect to it by allowing to withdraw the application for premature retirement; As no order was passed on the same, therefore, he had to approach the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
- 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties, we have gone through the judgment relied upon by the Service Tribunal thoroughly. The ratio decidendi of the judgments is that the Government Servant may withdraw his request for the premature retirement before its acceptance by the competent authority. Applying the law, laid down in this case and in view of the admission made by the learned counsel for respondent that the application for premature retirement was accepted vide order dated 12-7-2009, copy of which has been placed on record, therefore, we are of the opinion that no sooner application for premature retirement was accepted, the petitioner had no authority to withdraw the same on the basis of subsequent application made for withdrawal of the previous application for premature retirement after its acceptance.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Instant review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21-1-2011 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court has non suited the petitioner relying upon para No.2 of entry at Sl.No.6, of the Esta Code under the caption "withdrawal of application for premature retirement" read with the judgment in the case of Govt. of Sindh, through Sccretary S&GAD v. Raja Muhammad Inayat Khan (2000 SCMR 1964) whereas ratio decidendi of the judgment is that once the request for premature retirement is accepted then the withdrawal is not possible. To substantiate his plea he has also placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Naseer v. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and another (2005 SCMR 1928), N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology v. Syed Ashfaq Hussaini Shah (2006 SCMR 453) and Muhammad Nisar Gul Khan v. District Coordination Officer and others (2008 SCMR 1078). According to him, in view of the error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment be reviewed and as a consequence whereof the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 10-11-2010, be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent stated that undoubtedly he applied for premature retirement on 12-7-2009 whereas he applied for withdrawal of his request on 19-1-2010, therefore, according to him as per para No.2 of Entry at Sl. No.6, of the Esta Code the competent authority was bound to give effect to it by allowing to withdraw the application for premature retirement; As no order was passed on the same, therefore, he had to approach the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
4. It is to be noted that the Service Tribunal had also placed reliance on the case of Raja Muhammad Inayat Khan (ibid) and on the basis of the same, has granted relief as was prayed for, to the respondent.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties, we have gone through the judgment relied upon by the Service Tribunal thoroughly. The ratio decidendi of the judgments is that the Government Servant may withdraw his request for the premature retirement before its acceptance by the competent authority. Applying the law, laid down in this case and in view of the admission made by the learned counsel for respondent that the application for premature retirement was accepted vide order dated 12-7-2009, copy of which has been placed on record, therefore, we are of the opinion that no sooner application for premature retirement was accepted, the petitioner had no authority to withdraw the same on the basis of subsequent application made for withdrawal of the previous application for premature retirement after its acceptance.
6. Under Article 188 of the Constitution, we accept the review petition as a result whereof judgment dated 21-1-2011 passed by this Court is reviewed, the petition filed by the petitioner (Commandant Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul), is accepted by converting the same into appeal and allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 10-11-2010, is set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs. M.H./C-9/SC Appeal allowed.