' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--- This civil appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the judgment, dated 16-6-2005 passed by Lahore High Court whereby writ petition brought by appellant against the respondents was dismissed.
' He had filed writ petition with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be accepted and a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that respondents should immediately pay the monthly salary to the petitioner from 1-12-1992 todate. It is further respectfully prayed that till the final disposal of this petition the respondents may be directed to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner provisionally. It is also respectfully prayed that cost of this petition may be awarded. Any other relief appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be granted."
' The appellant was serving as Inspector Vaccination of Zila Council, Narowal. On 17-8-1991 he submitted application before Administrator Zila Council/Deputy Commissioner for premature retirement/L.P.R. On completion of 25 years of service, which was allowed on 13-11-1991. However, thereafter he submitted application for withdrawal of his demand for premature retirement. On 10- 2-1992 Chief Officer informed the appellant that he had been retired from service of Zila Council w.e.f, 1*-2-1992. Later on appellant approached Chairman Zila Council to set aside order, dated 10- 2-1992 passed by Chief Officer Zila Council. On 7-1-1993 Chairman issued letter to appellant for assumption of charge and on the basis of the same he filed writ petition and prayed for issuance of direction to respondents to pay him salary from 1-12-1992. After hearing the parties learned High Court dismissed the writ petition brought by appellant vide judgment, dated 16-6-2005. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. As mentioned earlier appellant was serving as Inspector Vaccination of Zila Council, Narowal but he submitted application for premature retirement/L.P.R. Which was accepted.
However, later on he filed application for withdrawal of A demand for L.P.R. The record shows that order of retirement dated 13-11-1991 was never set aside by Competent Authority. Learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that appellant had proceeded on leave after acceptance of his application for premature retirement and submitted application after 5/6 months. As such it is clear that retirement order passed at the request of appellant had attained finality and become a past and closed transaction and there was no justification for withdrawal of order of L.P.R. So impugned judgment is just and proper. The judgment, dated 16-6-2005 shows that writ petition brought by appellant was decided after appraisal of entire material available on record. Para.3 of the said judgment reads as under:-- "(3) The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Even the letter, dated 10-2-1992 of the Chief Officer being relied upon clearly refers to the L.P.R. Already sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Another important feature of the case is that the order, dated 13-11-1991 of the competent authority was not set aside or recalled vide order, dated 7-1-1993 of the Chairman, Zila Council, Narowal. In fact Chief Officer, Zila Council Narowal was not the competent authority in relation to the petitioner and any uncalled for observation or direction could hardly dilute the effect of the order passed by the competent authority. No case is, therefore, made out for interference. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs."
5. It is well-reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference by this Court. However, record shows that appellant had applied for retirement w.e.f, 30-12-1992 but he was retired w.e.f, 1-2-1992. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has no objection if his order of retirement is accordingly modified/corrected to this extent. As such appellant shall be deemed to have been retired w.e.f, 30-12-1992. With the above modification in retirement order/L.P.R. This appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.