1. ' This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-5-2002 whereby petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the appellant was appointed in the respondent establishment as a NaibQasid B.S-I in the year, 1969. He Was promoted as a Mate in B.S-4. During his service he was an active member of the Trade Union. He was President of MulazmeenDarjaChaharam of MCL as well as President of MCL Employees Federation. A notice of premature retirement according to the appellant was issued to him on 30th of June, 1994. He challenged the same before this Commission through Case No,4A(369)/94-L. A stay order was granted by a learned Single Member which was withdrawn on 24-11-1997 when the petition was also dismissed.
3. ' Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition, respondent functionaries issued an office order whereby direction was issued to deduct the benefits gained by the appellant after issuance of notice of retirement.
4. ' The appellant challenged the said order and the learned Single Member through the impugned judgment has dismissed the same. Hence this appeal.
5. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody has entered appearance from the respondent side as such they are proceeded, ex parte. It is reflected from he file that the appellant secured certain service benefits after the grant of stay order from the learned Single Member of the Commission. In the circumstances those benefits which he got during currency of the restraint order passed by the Commission cannot be deducted from his pension. Reliance in this respect is placed on PLC 1992 Page 207. The Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 0 another versus Jalaluddin wherein it was held as under: "Locus poenitentiae is the .Power of receding till a decisive stepis taken. But it is not a principle of law that order once passed become irrevocable and it is past and closed transaction. If the order is illegal then perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of an illegal order. The appellants when came to know that on the basis of incorrect letter, the respondent was granted Grade-II, they withdrew the said letter. The principle of locus poenitentiae would not apply in this case. However, as the.Respondent had received the amount on the bona fide belief, the appellant is not entitled to recover the amount drawn by the respondent during the period when the latter remained in the field."
6. ' Resultantly the appeal is accepted to the extent that the benefits which the appellant, secured by rendering his service till the dismissal of his petition on 24-11-1997 be not deducted. The appeal is accepted in the above terms.