' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Necessary facts out of which the present appeal arises are that respondent was appointed by the appellants as Junior Clerk in Agricultural Department. He had completed 26 years and 3 months service qualifying for pension. Respondent submitted an application before appellant No,3 for voluntary retirement. He also submitted an application for securing LPR w,e,f, 1-7- 2006 to 30-6-2007 before appellant No, 3 who accepted the same vide order dated 16-6-2006.
Notification also contained the following para:-- "He shall stand retired from Government Service with effect from 30-6-2007 (After Noon)."
2. Respondent submitted an application under the subject "request for cancellation of LPR Ghulam Shabbir, J.C." on 24-6-2007 which was received in the office of the appellants on 25-6-2007 and the same was forwarded by his parent department to the Finance Department. The same was declined in the light of note No,1 beneath Rule 3.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Respondent being aggrieved filed constitutional petition No,3300 of 2008 in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench which was accepted vide impugned judgment.
3. On 29-5-2009, this Court granted leave to the petitioners/ appellants, relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereunder:- "Learned Law Officer, on merits, submitted that the respondent voluntarily applied for retirement, the Department allowed his application, vide order dated 16-6-2006 and sanctioned LPR, which was to expire on 30-6-2007 on which date he was to retire but the respondent after availing total period of LPR applied for withdrawal of his request for retirement; that the learned High Court erred in law in allowing respondent's constitutional petition as the respondent could not have withdrawn his request for retirement after availing LPR and that if the impugned order is allowed to be remained in field it will be taken as precedent and the entire fibre of service will be punctured.
Conversely, learned AOR for the respondent, submitted that the petition was barred by time and that the respondent before completion of LPR lawfully withdrew his request for retirement.
' Having heard learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned AOR for the respondent, we grant leave to appeal to the petitioners, to inter alia, consider the afore-noted contentions, subject to the bar of limitation, which question will be decided at the time of hearing the appeal."
4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that impugned judgment is not in consonance with Punjab Civil Service Pension Rules, 1955 particularly note-I of rule 3.5 under the heading retiring pension. He also urged that impugned judgment is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts along with note-1 in rule 3.5 retiring pension of said rules to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
(i) Respondent submitted application for voluntary retirement along with another application to secure LPR w,e,f, 1-7-2006 to 30-6-2007 which was accepted vide order dated 16-6-2006 along with the observation that respondent would stand retired from service w,e,f, 30-6-2007 (After Noon).
(ii) Respondent submitted an application 4/5 days before his actual date for withdrawal of his voluntary resignation to the appellants on 26-6-2007 which was forwarded by the appellants to the Finance Department and the same was rejected vide order dated 19-5-2008.
' PUNJAB ESTACODE, RULE 3.5. NOTE-1:-- ' Note (I) Subject to the provisions of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, all government servants shall have the right to retire on a retiring pension after, completing 25 years qualifying service; provided that a government servant, who intends to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, shall, at least three months before the date on which he intends to retire, submit a written intimation to the authority which appointed him, indicating the date on which he intends to retire. Such an intimation, once submitted, shall be final; provided that if a government servant withdraws his application for voluntary retirement, or modifies the date Of such retirement, before its acceptance by the competent authority, the application or the date of retirement shall be deemed to have been withdrawn or modified, as the case may be.
7. In case the aforesaid facts and the Note-I or Rule 3.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1955 (Punjab ESTACODE 2003 page 690) are put in a juxtaposition, then respondent had availed LPR almost 365 days in view of his acceptance of his retirement by the appellants vide order dated 16- 6-2006 coupled with the fact that the respondent had submitted an application for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement just five days before his actual retirement on 30-6-2007. This fact brings the case of the respondent that the respondent had taken the benefit of the order dated 16-6- 2006. The respondent had mentioned his B intended date of retirement as 30-6-2007. The competent authority had dismissed his application for withdrawal of his resignation with cogent reasons in terms of law on the subject as mentioned above vide order dated 19-5-2008.
Respondent had failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order of the appellants dated 19- 5-2008. The learned High Court had accepted the constitutional petition without adverting to the relevant rules on the subject as evident from the contents of the impugned judgment. It is a settled law that a Judge must wear all the laws of the country on the sleeve of his robe and failure of the counsel to properly advise is not a complete excuse in the matter as law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278. The question of law has settled down by this Court since long in Shmoon Bahadur's case PLD 1979 SC 835. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "Nonetheless when the LPR was about to come to an end the respondent, by an application dated 3rd of June 1971 showed his desire to withdraw his request which apparently was misconceived as on that date an effective order for his retirement has already been passed. The option having been once exercised it did not lie in his mouth to go back on it in the context of the finality of the consequences ensuing therefrom by its acceptance."
8. The said view was approved by this Court in Muhammad Iqbal's case 1984 SCM R 334. The impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law on any canon of justice. It is a settled law that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189-190 of the Constitution but the learned High Court had accepted the constitutional petition of respondent in violation of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, appeal is allowed as a I result whereof impugned judgment is set aside with no order as to costs.