Pakistan Case Law← Search
PLJ 2012 Tr.C. (Services) 115

ASLAM vs GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE

CitationPLJ 2012 Tr.C. (Services) 115
CourtFederal Service Tribunal
Judge(s)Moazzam Hayat, M.A. Aziz
ResultAppeal dismissed

Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Aslam was retired from service on 11.07.2007 against which he filed departmental appeal on 25.3.2010. Since his departmental appeal was not decided, he filed Writ Petition No, 23607/2010 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. It was dismissed as not pressed on 11.04.2010 as the appellant had stated before the said Court that he would seek remedy in the Federal Service Tribunal.

2. The appellant had apparently been retired prematurely on his request. It is stated by him that he had never made any request for early retirement.

3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had himself submitted an application for early retirement and when he was directed to vacate the official quarter he obtained a stay order from the Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5. The appellant had been retired from service on 11.07.2009. His departmental appeal dated 25.03.2010 was time barred. The appeal is not competent in view of law laid down in 2007 SCM R 513.

The filing of writ petition, subsequently withdrawn, did not enlarge the period of limitation. The appeal is not only not maintainable but is also time barred.

6. On merits also the appellant has no case. He had been retired on his written request. We are not prepared to believe that any senior officer had indulged into fabricating an application for retirement of the appellant. There is thus no force in his contention that his request for LPR had been converted into request for early retirement by the DEN. In fact his request had been approved by the DEN and was verified by DAO, Lahore.

6. It appears to us that the appellant had filed this appeal only to remain in occupation of a residential quarter for which he had filed a civil suit.

7. We find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed as not maintainable, as time barred and being without any merit

8. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Parties shall be informed accordingly.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search