S. HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN (MEMBER).-In this case the tippellant, Abdullah Javed, contended that he is neither retired under section 12 00 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, nor he is on the Preparatory to Retirement, whereas the respondents, i,e, the Food Department, maintain that he is both.
2. Briefly stated, the appeal arises out of the following facts. The appellant on 19th /January, 1980, applied for L. P. R. w. e. f. 1st May, 1980. By order dated 5th March, 1980 the Deputy Director Food, Multan (respondent No. 1) sanctioned one year's L. P. R. i,e, from 1st May, 1980 to 30th April, 1981 on full pay. However, before the appellant could proceed on L. P. R., the Rationing Controller, Multan, wrote a letter dated 22nd April, 1980 to respondent No. 1 that the appellant was a hardworking, efficient and honest official and that the R.C's office was already suffering badly due to deficient staff and that the appellant's L. P. R., may be cancelled. Accepting this recommendation, respondent No. 1 cancelled, "in the public interest" the order granting L. P. R., to the appellant. This was on 24th April, 1980 i,e,, a week before the L.P.R., was to commence, and the order was duly implemented. However, on 1st September, 1980, by another order, the order cancelling the L. P. R., was withdrawn and simultaneously the iappellant was granted one year's L.P.R., from 1st September, 1980 to 31st August, 1981. The appellant on 31st December, 1980 represented to the Director of Food, Punjab (respondent No, 2) seeking that the order granting him L.P.R., from 1st September, 1980 is set aside since he had not requested for this leave, but this representation was rejected on 1st April, 1981 through a letter from respondent No, 2 to Respondent No. 1 stating that since the appellant had proceeded on L.P.R., w,e,f, 1st May, 1980 (not 1st September, 1980 when the L.P.R., was resanctioned) he cannot be allowed to come back into service. Hence this appeal.
3. The parties were heard. The appellant submitted that he had never asked for cancellation of his L.P.R., in the first instance, although he had an offer of a job from a private firm with a salary of Rs, 2,000 p.m., which offer was later withdrawn when the appellant could not join duty there because of recall by the Food Department. He was thus put to great financial loss, With that attractive offer no longer there he was interested in continuing the service in the Food Department but he was informed that he was on one year's L.P.R. From 1st September. 1980 whereas he had never applied for leave for this period. According to the appellant it was an accepted fact that L.P.R., can only be granted on request. It cannot be thrust on a civil servant against his will. Once the L.P.R., asked for had been cancelled the respondents were estopped from reviving it on their own whim. The case of Raja Mohammad Nawaz was quoted an authority whereby the highest Court of the country had held that under the principles of "loco poenitentiae" and "animus revertendi" the Government could not go back on its orders which had resulted in certain benefits to the petitioner in that case. Apart from this, no order of actual retitement had been issued by any authority and the appellant could not be considered to have retired after 25 years of service qualifying for pension, merely on the strength of the order granting him L. P. R. For the respondents it was argued that the L. P. R., was part of the process of retirement and once a civil servant proceeded on L. P. R., after completing 25 years' service his retirement was automatic.
4. On questioning the Departmental Representative present on the day the hearing was completed, we were told by him (the Representative was Mr. Mohammad lqbal Hussain, Assistant Accounts Officer, Food, Multan) that there was no separate retirement order on the record and that only the order about L. P. R., had been issued by the competent authority. The appeal is liable to be accepted on this point alone. L.P.R. Is incidental to retirement under section 12 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act and it alone cannot permit the official concerned to stand retired. In fact a civil servant who offers to retire after 25 years of service, or is thus retired by the competent authority, may not avail himself of the L. P. R., at all. Whether he wants L. P. R., or not, and whether he applies for it or not, he cannot be termed to have retired unless and until an order to that effect, under section 12 (ii) (ibid) is issued. In the case of the appellant no such order was issued. And since he was not duly retired there can be no question of his proceeding on L.P.R. Moreover, the fact is there that the order of A. A. C. 0. Cancelling the appellant's L.P.R., did not postpone the L.P.R., or suspend it or hold it in abeyance ; it cancelled it. We believe that there was a finality in that order which did not place it at par with other routine Government orders which can be withdrawn or substituted by fresh orders. The matter of L.P.R., could only have been revived if the appellant had himself applied for its de novo, since grant of L. P. R., was contingent upon the appellant's applying for it.
5. In view of the conclusions drawn by us above, the appellant has neither retired nor has he proceeded on L.P.R. In fact, he continues in service without any break arising out of the impugned order.
The appeal thus stands accepted, with no orders as to costs. 1981 SCM R 523