M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--In this case the appellant, ex-- Clerk, Office of D. C., Lahore is aggrieved by the order of D. C. Dated 23-9-1979 canceling his previous order dated 4-9-1979 allowing him to recall to service. In this case the appellant, at his own request, was allowed to proceed on L. P. R. By the order of the D. C. Dated 27-8-1978 under which he was due to retire on 31- 5-1979. It appears that the appellant applied on I8-2-1979 to allow him to be recalled to service as the circumstances had undergone a charge. His case was process and the request was allowed by the order of D. C., Lahore dated 4-9-1979 and he was informed accordingly. However subsequently by another order dated 23rd September, 1979, the previous order dated 4th September 1979 was cancelled although the appellant had in the meantime resumed duty and started functioning. The appellant submits that since the order dated 4th September, 1979 had been duly given effect to, the authority was left with no locus to recall the same. The order of the D. C. Dated 23rd September 1979, was, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction. He assailed the order of the Commissioner dated 9-2-1979 on his appeal/representation on identical grounds.
2. The Department, however, submitted that according to the original order granting L. P. R. To the appellant, he was due to retire on 31st May 1979 and since no order of recall was passed by that time, therefore, the order had assumed finality. As such the D. C. Had no power to pass the order dated 4th September 1979, which was a nullity as the retirement of the appellant in terms of section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 had effectuated, which reads as under :- "A civil servant shall retire from service--
(i) .
(ii) .
(iii) where no direction is given under clause (i) or (ii) on the completion of his 60 years of age."
It has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Shamoon Bahadur's case that the date of retirement once fixed by the Department is final. In ratio of the aforesaid decision we are inclined to hold that retirement of the appellant after 31st May 1979 had become final. Thus the D. C., Lahore was left with no power to recall the order of retirement. Consequently the order dated 23rd September, 1979, recalling the earlier order was unexceptionable. Thus the appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.