' MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).---The appellant is ex-constable police, who applied for LPR retirement after having completed more than 25 years service qualifying for pension through application dated 10-7-2002, LPR was accordingly sanctioned and retirement was allowed w,e,f, 15- 7-2003 in accordance with his request although order dated 16-7-2002. The appellant states that although LPR was sanctioned w,e,f, 15-7-2000, he was actually relieved of duty on 6-8-2002 and before being relieved he had submitted another application dated 18-7-2002 requesting for cancellation of LPR. In the application for grant of LPR option retirement, the appellant had given the reasons that he could not continue further in service due to domestic circumstances. In the application for cancellation of LPR submitted after a week, the appellant stated that he could continue in service, as his domestic circumstances were quite satisfactory. His request for cancellation of LPR was finally rejected through order dated 8-5-2003 in which it was indicated that his request for re-employment could not be entertained hence the present appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant had the right to withdraw his application for LPR as he had actually not retired when he submitted application for cancellation of the LPR. It is also maintained that the application for cancellation of LPR was submitted when he had not yet been relieved and had not proceeded on LPR. It is also pointed out that the appellant had sufficient period of service to serve and that he did not want to retire prematurely being quite healthy. It is also maintained that discrimination has been exercised in the case of the appellant because in another case, LPR allowed to head constable had been cancelled by the concerned authority. Learned counsel has also referred to the authority reported as 1984 PLC (CS) 1191 on the same subject, in which it was held that LPR being part of service, a civil servant could withdraw option for retirement before completion of LPR.
3. The appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is maintained on behalf of the respondents that the appellant has already proceeded on retirement after completion of LPR w,e,f, 15-7-2003, in accordance with the sanction of LPR option retirement. It is further maintained on behalf of the respondents that although the appellant was relieved from duty on 6-8-2002, but according to sanction order, LPR had started w,e,f, 16-7-2002 and that for this reason, retirement of the appellant took place on 15-7-2003. It is also maintained that in accordance with Government instructions option for retirement once exercised and accepted by the authority could not be withdrawn and the authority had the right not to agree with the request to the concerned civil servant in that connection. The appellant submitted application for withdrawal of his application when the same had been sanctioned and that no discrimination had been made in the case of the appellant in that regard. It is further stated that the appellant has since availed of LPR and has also proceeded on retirement and he could not be allowed to come back to service at this stage after he had retired.
4. I have considered the contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record I find that in accordance with the Government instructions, a civil servant has the rights to exercise option for retirement LPR with full responsibility and with utmost care. It is for this reason that a civil servant is required to apply at least three months before the actual date on which he intends to proceed on LPR or retirement. The appellant submitted application for retirement LPR without observing this requirement of rules and consequently he was sanctioned LPR and allowed to proceed on optional retirement. I also find that the appellant submitted request for LPR on the ground that his domestic circumstances were bad and only after a week he submitted another application stating that his domestic circumstances were good. There is obvious contradiction in the second application of the appellant. Domestic circumstances which compel a civil servant to seek retirement cannot be expected to change within one week. I further find that the appellant has no vested right in accordance with the terms and conditions of service to return from LPR or withdraw his option of LPR. The appellant has stressed the fact that LPR being like leave was part of service and, therefore, the appellant had the right to come back. I am afraid, this contention of the appellant is rather self-negating. Under rule 26 of Leave Rules 1981, a civil servant is not given the right to join duty before expiry of sanctioned leave. This right is given to the competent authority to allow or not allow a civil servant to return to duty before expiry of leave. I, therefore, find that the authority acted in accordance with lawful powers conferred upon it while not permitting the appellant to return from LPR once the same had been sanctioned.
5. For the detailed reasons given above, the appeal is without any merit, substance and legal footing. The same is accordingly dismissed.