' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 17th July, 2001 passed by Federal Service Tribunal whereby Appeal No,I833-L of 1998 filed by petitioner has been dismissed. Concluding para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "We have heard the parties at some length, perused the documents available on record and this Tribunal regret to observe that when the appellant tendered his premature retirement with his own free-will, the same was accepted by the respondent-Bank and the appellant got received his all retiring dues without' any reservation, then how the appellant can be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same breath? Obviously, no law of the land allowed the appellant to travel in two boats at the same time which he did. On one hand, during the service, he joined the Metropolitan Bank and received salaries even during the period of 19 months pending decision upon his application of premature retirement, while on the other hand, the appellant, claimed the salaries of the period until the date of decision of the acceptance of his premature retirement. The appellant is stopped by his own words and conduct in agitating the matter of his premature retirement and prima facie fails to make out any case for the interference of this Tribunal."
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that petitioner while serving in the respondent-Bank as Assistant Vice-President, upon completion of 25 years of service, filed his option for premature retirement dated 15th May,1990 with immediate effect for the reason that he wanted to join another financial institution for lucrative incentives. He also cleared his all dues and liabilities for the purpose of affecting his order of retirement and an NOC. The respondent-Bank lingered on the matter of the acceptance of premature retirement, however, later on vide order dated 14th February, 1998, accepted the application of petitioner for premature retirement, against which he preferred appeal to the President of the Bank, dated 10th March, 1995 praying to allow him the resumption of duties in the respondent-Bank but remained unresponded, as such he approached the Federal Service Tribunal for cancellation of the order of his retirement dated 1,4th February, 1998, along with letter of confirmation of the same dated 7th October, 1998 and to declare the same to be illegal, unjustified with the prayer to restore the employment of the petitioner with the respondent-Bank. Learned Service Tribunal, however, did not accede to the request of petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by him by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that petitioner's case was delayed for a considerable period by the respondent-Bank and, in the meantime, he submitted an application dated 15th September, 1997 for retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme introduced on 23rd August, 1997 and option of premature retirement was withdrawn by him by submitting application, dated 17th January, 1998, therefore, he was entitled for the benefits of Golden Handshake Scheme, which had been introduced in the meanwhile.
4. Suffice to observe that Department did not allow the petitioner to withdraw his earlier request for premature retirement which he has made by submitting application, dated 10th May, 1996 and ultimately accepted the same on 14th February, 1998, therefore, petitioner under these circumstances, was not entitled for any of the benefits of the Golden Handshake Scheme, which was introduced in the meantime. It is equally important to note that petitioner after having submitted the application for premature retirement joined the Metropolitan Bank and received salaries for the period of 19 months pending decision upon his application for premature retirement, therefore, he cannot claim benefits of salary etc. For this period nor benefits of Golden Handshake Scheme can be extended to him because it was announced when petitioner had already joined Metropolitan Bank. Thus for such reasons judgment passed by the Service Tribunal admits no interference by this Court.
' For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined.