1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal by which petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 17-8-1976, petitioner while serving as Inspector in the Income-tax Department, made an application that he having completed 25 years service qualifying for pension may be permitted to retire with pensionary benefits. His prayer was granted and he was retired from service by the order dated 1-9-1976.
3. On' 20-9-1976 petitioner made an application for grant of leave preparatory to retirement and this too was granted by the order, dated 23-9-1976 in these words: "Mr. Mirza Ayub Jan Beg, Inspector of the Office of Income Tax Officer, Circle-III, East Zone, Karachi is granted leave preparatory to retirement as follows:
(i) Leave on average pay for 6 months w.e.f. 1-10-1976 to 31-3-1977.
(ii) Leave on half average pay for 6 months w.e.f. 1-4-1977 to 30-9-1977.
2. On expiry of leave preparatory to retirement, Mr. Mirza Ayub Jan Beg, Inspector, is permitted to retire from Government Service w.e.f. 30-9-1977 (AN)."
4. On 30-6-1977 petitioner however made an application withdrawing his request for retirement which was dismissed on 1-2-1983 and the departmental appeal filed by him was also dismissed on 28-5-1983.
5. It was in these circumstances that petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which too was also dismissed as stated above.
6. The reason that prevailed with the Service Tribunal in dismissing the appeal was that after having enjoyed substantial part of the leave preparatory to retirement, it was not open to the petitioner to revoke his own choice which was acted upon by him as well as by the department. In this behalf the Service Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in "Secretary, Govt. Of Punjab v. Shamoon Bahadar, PLD 1979 SC 853 and also on the reported case of "Ch. Muhammad Khalil v. Ministry of Defence PLD 1985 S.C. 178" wherein it was held that when a civil servant gives intimation for pre- mature retirement, he brings an end of his service tenure unilaterally which has no power to revoke in view of express bar embodied in C.S.R. 465-B.
7. Now the petitioner who appears in person in support of the petition submits that the order of his retirement from service is invalid in law for the reason that it was passed in contravention of the rule which requires the Government servant to give three months notice.
8. The judgment of the Service Tribunal shows that this plea was not raised by the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner before the Tribunal. Moreover, having acted upon the order of retirement passed at his own request it does not now lie in the, mouth of the petitioner to raise the above plea. On the facts of the case no exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the Service Tribunal.
9. The petition, is therefore dismissed.