' JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LAGHARI, (CHAIRMAN).---This service appeal is directed against the order dated 15th March, 2003 passed in a review petition, seeking the review of the order dated 18- 7-2002 whereby the departmental appeal filed by the Appellant, challenging the order of District Judge Jacobabad dated 18-5-2002 was rejected by a learned Judge of this Court.
2. The facts in brief are that the Appellant joined service in Judicial District Jacobabad on 5-8-1968.
While being posted as Reader in the Civil Court Garhi Khairo, he submitted an application on 11-4- 2002 requesting therein for grant of retirement from service. Such application was forwarded by Civil Judge concerned to the District and Sessions Judge vide endorsement dated 11-4-2004.
Subsequently the same was accepted by Competent Authority viz. The District and Sessions Judge Jacobabad vide in his order dated 18-4-2002. However, on 23-4-2002 the Appellant submitted an application praying therein for recalling the order on the ground that after retirement he has been rendered jobless and was faced with acute financial problems, therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw his application for retirement. Such request of the applicant was rejected by District and Sessions Judge, Jacobabad vide order dated 18-5-2002 against which the Appellant filed departmental appeal. The departmental appeal was heard by a learned Judge of this Court, who dismissed the same by order dated 18-7-2002. Review petition filed by the petitioner also met with the same fate. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the appellant in person, while the Additional Advocate General Sindh appeared on behalf of respondents.
4. It is submitted by the appellant, that after his retirement, he is unemployed, having no source of income, though he has a large family to look after. He has therefore prayed for considering his request sympathetically by allowing him to withdraw the resignation tendered by him. During the course of hearing, the appellant has not raised any contention with regard to causing humiliation, compulsion, coercion and pressure though such pleas find mention in the memo. Of appeal.
Appellant, however, submitted that before receiving the retirement benefits he moved an application for permission to withdraw his application and recalling of the order of acceptance of his retirement option.
' Appellant in support of his submissions referred to a judgment dated 31-3-2004 passed by Federal Service Tribunal Appeal No,873(K) (CE) of 2002.
5. Conversely the prayer of the appellant has been opposed by the Additional Advocate-General, contending that the option of premature retirement was exercised by the appellant voluntarily, and without coercion, his departmental appeal was therefore rightly rejected. So also the application for review.
6. We have considered the submissions put forward before us and have also carefully perused the record.
7. It must be stated at the outset that though no plea of coercion/involuntary act of retirement has been pressed before us during the hearing, yet we have deemed it fit to examine this aspect of the case in order to satisfy our minds.
8. The perusal of record reveals that on 11-4-2002 the Appellant moved an application on the subject.--Request for grant of retirement from Government Service, wherein he specifically stated that he has completed 25 years of service, and that now he wants to retire from Government service. He therefore requested that he may be "permitted to retire from service w,e,f, 12-7-2002 and encashment of leave salary of 180 days in lieu of L.P.R. May also be sanctioned". His application was duly forwarded by the Civil Judge on same date. However, it was accepted by District and Sessions Judge vide Office Order dated 18-4-2002.
' Though subsequently the appellant moved an application dated 23-4-2002 before the District and Sessions Judge praying for recalling the order of acceptance of his request for retiremi,e,nt, but reason assigned in the said application was that after retirement, the appellant was rendered jobless, and that he was facing acute financial problems, thus was unable to pull on with the large family.
' In the said application, the appellant did not raise any grievance about exertion of pressure and coercion or involuntariness in the act of seeking retirement. Anyway, the Appellant was heard in person by the District and Sessions Judge and his application was rejected, for which reasons were assigned.
' It is worth-noting that the contents of the appellants for retirement sufficiently demonstrates that the appellant has given reasons for seeking retirement. He moved application on 11-4-2002, praying for permission to retire w,e,f, 12-7-2002. He further prayed for sanction of encashment of leave salary of 180 days in lieu of L.P.R.
9. The above facts and circumstances taken into consideration in totality are adequate enough to draw a conclusion that the Appellant submitted his application for pre-mature retirement in a predetermined manner. It was with intention and accompanied by act of relinquishment. Nothing is available on record to infer that the Appellant was discriminated and/or that he was subjected to coercion.
10. It may not be out of place to mention here that even during the hearing of departmental appeal, the appellant made a prayer for providing employment to his son in order to enable him to overcome the financial problems which revealed that he had no grievance against retirement, but required some financial assistance through provision of job to his son. Such observation was also made by the appellate authority in its orders impugned before us. However, regrettably consideration of such prayer is beyond the domain and scope of this Tribunal.
11. Reverting to the merits of the case, it may be observed that it is a well settled principle of law that, after a civil servant has voluntarily brought an end to his service tenure unilaterally, he shall not be entitled to revoke the same, once it has been accepted and notified.
' In the instant case, the appellant himself opted to seek premature retirement from service. His request was duly processed and the option exercised by the appellant was not only accepted, but it was notified and duly communicated to him. The appellant was debarred from retracting and getting out of it.
12. Though it is not necessary yet it may be observed that the judgment passed by Federal Service Tribunal referred by the appellant is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as, in that case the appellant was subjected to clear cut discrimination by the Department concerned, as he was not treated at par with other civil servants, besides in the said case, the option of the appellants was not notified to him. Certainly the circumstances in the appeal in hand are quite different.
13. We are of the view that the case of the appellant was properly and legally considered while disposing of his departmental appeal and review petition though review petition was not maintainable. The impugned orders are quite valid and legal. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merit.