Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 11816 of 1980, decided on 16th February, 1981.

‑‑‑‑ Salary‑Order of removal from service under M.L.R. 114 set aside awarding re‑instatement by Service Tribunal‑Claim for back salary for intervening period turned down by Department‑‑Remedy sought in writ petition before High Court‑Held : Only concession that law provides to Department (respondent) was that they ask petitioner to render accounts of his income of disputed period and same may be adjusted against his dues ‑ High Court directing calculation and payment of emoluments for back period‑Writ jurisdiction‑Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199.

Ch. Muhammad Zafar Yasin for Petitioner.

The petitioner who was removed under M.L.R. 114 has been reinstated by the Service Tribunal vide its order, dated 24th February, 1980, with the following observations :‑

"The department has not been able to controvert the above contention of the appellant either by producing anything to show that any material was ever present before the Competent Authority or any other material/information was available to the Competent Authority at the time of passing the impugned order. In our view, the Competent Authority did not appear to have been apprised of the complaint against the appellant through any other source nor there was any other additional material/information shown to be available with the Competent Authority to frame the opinion in this regard."

2. Briefly the facts leading to this petition are that the appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis as Sub‑Divisional Officer was to expire on 30th June, 1972. Meanwhile be was retired vide order, dated 13th March, 1972, passed under M.L R. 114. He challenged that order before the Service Tribunal in an appeal and the same ultimately succeeded as referred to above.

3. The submission being made on behalf of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the payment of his back salary as the omission on his part to serve was because of the impugned order and no blame can be placed on him for it.

4. Mr. W. H. Shamim appeared to state that though the administra tion department conceded the claim of the petitioner and submitted the same for its sanction by the Services and General Administration Depart ment, yet the same was turned down on the basis of a Federal Government letter, dated 5th April, 1980. The said letter provided that benefit of pro forma promotion as envisaged by clause 17(t) of rule 30 of the Fundamental Rules, cannot be extended to the officers/persons who have been re‑instated after retirement under M.L.R. 68 and M.L.R. 114.

5. Firstly, the Federal Government letter has nothing to do with the Provincial administration as the same is to be governed in accordance with the rules orders and directions of the Governor. Secondly, the order passed by the Service Tribunal has got to have its effect and the respondents are obliged to honour and implement the same.

6. The only concession that law provides to the respondents is that they ask the petitioner to render accounts of his income in respect of the disputed period and the same may be adjusted against the dues found 't in his favour.

7. In view of the above I direct that the respondents shall calculate the petitioner's emoluments for the back period on the basis of his appointment as Sub‑Divisional Officer on ad hoc basis upto 30th June 1972. He shall thereafter be paid on the basis of his substantive pos of Sub‑Engineer. There will be no order as to costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.