ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Muhammad Hanif, while working; as Foreman II in the 1st Sub-Division `E', WAPDA, Mian Channu, applied for LPR, due to illness of his mother, which was sanctioned vide order dated 12-11-1991. The appellant after the death of his mother submitted application dated 25-10-1992 for cancellation of the LPR but his request was rejected vide letter dated 22-11-1992, which was received by him on 1-12-1992. He then filed this appeal on 31-12-1992.
2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that there are several cases in which the LPR granted and availed were withdrawn, but the case of the appellant was treated indifferently and there has been discrimination, but he could not quote any instance.
3. The respondents have not filed comments but the learned counsel appearing on their behalf submitted that since the appellant had sought LPR at his own volition and had availed a major portion of the leave, it could not be revoked He has referred to the cases reported in 1988 SCMR 1536; 1984 SCMR 334 and 1988 PLC (C.S.) 786.
4. The admitted facts are that the appellant had applied for LPR at his own volition, which was sanctioned and the appellant proceeded on leave with effect from 1-1-1992 and when the LPR was .To expire on 31-12-1992, he just made an application dated 25-10-1992 for cancellation of the LPR which was not accepted and rightly so because it is a settled law that once LPR is sanctioned and availed of, it could not be revoked or withdrawn and on this proposition the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are the direct authorities. Therefore, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.