1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner who finally retired as a civil servant from the Punjab Government w.c.f. 23-2-1969 seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby his claim, that his retirement should have been postponed to 23-2-1974 when he attained the age of the super- annuation, was rejected.
2. ' The petitioner had challenged his retirement from the service from a lower grade in the Civil Court.
3. He had obtained a judgment and decree by which his retirement from a higher post but on attaining the age of 55 years was upheld. This judgment & decree is dated 15-9-1979. Against this judgment and decree the petitioner claimed no further relief. In giving effect to the judgment, the Government of the Punjab by a notification dated 10-5-1980 modified the order of his retirement to bring it in conformity with the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Having received the benefits thereunder, he approached the Government for claiming retirement not at the age of 55 years but at the age of 60 years and also seeking pro forma promotion to which he may might have become entitled after attaining the age of 55 years and before the age of superannuation determined by him. On not getting the relief, he approached the Service Tribunal which dismissed his claim primarily on the ground that it was fully taken care of by the judgment of the Civil Court which was conclusive as between the parties.
4. ' The petitioner has appeared in person, to contend that as his pleas with regard to retirement and status prevailed with the Civil Court and he obtained the judgment and decree, the claim made by him was in fact consequential to it.
5. The petitioner having obtained from the Civil Court all the reliefs that he was then seeking, cannot now during the course of implementation of the judgment and decree seek more either from the Tribunal or from the Government. Tribunal has rightly held that the rights of the parties have been determined by the Civil Court against which none agitated. It is conclusive and binding on the petitioner too. There is no merit and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
6. ' Leave to .