NAZIR AHMED vs CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN Rr — 2024 PLC(CS) 1254 APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN |

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NAZIR AHMED VS CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN Rr. 40 & 46---Leave Preparatory to Retirement, withdrawal of---'High Court Establishment' and 'Civil Servant'---Distinction---Competent authority, powers of---Application moved by the appellant, Court Assistant availing Leave Preparatory to Retirement (L.P.R.), for withdrawal of L.P.R was dismissed---Contention of the appellant was that as High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2020 ('the Rules, 2020') were applicable to the appellant which governed a civil servant, so appellant was entitled for withdrawal under R. 48 of the Leaves Rules, 2020---Validity---Sub-Rule (1) of R. 48 of the Leave Rules, 2020, provides that a civil servant may, with the approval of the next above/higher authority to the competent authority to sanction L.P.R, withdraw his option of voluntary retirement within the period of LP.R---According to said rule, the approval of the next above/higher authority to the competent authority to sanction L.P.R is a condition precedent for withdrawal LPR---In the present case, the LPR was sanctioned by the Chief Justice of the High Court as the competent authority---In the High Court of Balochistan there does not exist any higher authority to the competent authority (the Chief Justice)---As such, R. 48 of the Leaves Rules, 2020 was not applicable in the case of appellant---By virtue of R. 40 of the Rules, 2020, though, the terms and conditions of service of the High Court's establishment, including leave, pay etc. shall be governed by the laws for the time being enforced and applicable to civil servants in posts in the same scale in the Provincial Government, yet, R. 48(1) of the Leave Rules, 2020, is not applicable in the High Court as higher authority to the Chief Justice does not exist---Besides, while enacting Rules, 2020, R. 48 of Leaves Rules, 2020, was neither adopted nor enacted into Rules, 2020, therefore, reliance on such Rule by the appellant was mis-conceived---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 1254 APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case NAZIR AHMED VS CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN Leave Preparatory to Retirement, withdrawal of---Principle of locus poenitentiae---Application moved by the appellant ,Court Assistant availing Leave Preparatory to Retirement (L.P.R.), for withdrawal of L.P.R was dismissed---Validity---Record revealed that when the L.P.R was about to come to an end the appellant expressed his desire to withdraw his option of L.P.R.---Request of the appellant was misconceived as an effective order for his retirement had already been passed---Option once having been exercised by the appellant could not be withdrawn on the principle of locus poenitentiae---Appellant had taken the benefit of his L.P.R. notification and received the salary from the public exchequer during the L.P.R period---In his application, appellant had mentioned his intended date of retirement (as 31st July, 2023)---Option of L.P.R. could be withdrawn prior to its acceptance by the competent authority, whereafter, it attains finality and becomes a past and closed transaction---Appellant could not have applied for withdrawal of his option of L.P.R which was secured by the appellant at his own request---Appellant could have applied for withdrawal of his application made for availing the option of L.P.R prior to the issuance of Notification by virtue of which, the L.P.R for 365 days was sanctioned---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 1254 APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case NAZIR AHMED VS CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN Leave Preparatory to Retirement, withdrawal of---Scope---Application moved by the appellant, Court Assistant availing Leave Preparatory to Retirement (L.P.R.), for withdrawal of L.P.R was dismissed---Validity---Record revealed that the Notification of premature retirement was acted upon on acceptance of L.P.R. vide a notification---Appellant proceeded on L.P.R after relieving the charge of his office; he enjoyed the L.P.R for almost nine months and all of sudden, changed his mind---According to Chapter-5, Rule 1.6, Serial No.2 the ESTACODE, a written intimation once submitted by a government servant who intends to retire after completing twenty five years service qualifying for pension, shall be final and shall not be allowed to be modified or withdrawn---Hence, appellant's application had rightly been rejected by the Competent Authority---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

NAZIR AHMED vs CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN Rr — 2024 PLC(CS) 1254 APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC