Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
1984 P L C (C.S.) 1588
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman and Abdul Hameed Chaudhry, Member
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD
Case No. 276/1070 of 1981, decided on 25th June, 1983.
‑‑ S. 4 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151‑Civil servant awarded penalty of dismissal from service‑Service Tribunal in appeal altering penalty to that of censure and stop page of two increments‑Civil Servant claiming back benefits for period spent out of service‑Claim rejected by competent authority on ground that he was not given honourable acquittal‑Civil Servant filing Miscellaneous application before Tribunal under S. 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for claim of back benefits. Civil servant, in circumstances, held, could not claim back benefits and intervening period directed to be treated as leave of kind due.
Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner.
A.G. Hamahun, District Attorney for Respondent.
S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).
‑In case of Muhammad Ismail Jr. Clerk, office of the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad, mis cellaneous application has been filed by him under section 151, C.P.C. in which it has been prayed that he may be allowed all back benefits relat ing to the period during which he remained out of service. He move this application before the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad, but the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not given honour able acquittal and only his sentence was varied from dismissal to that of censure and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.
2. We have read our judgment, dated 21st September, 1982 and find that the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner is absolutely correct as we have not exonerated the appellant completely but have only varied the sentence to censure and stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. In this manner it will not be proper for him to claim back benefits in the present case. However, the period of his absence will be treated as leave of the kind due to him.
3. Resultantly the petition is disposed of in the light of the observa tion made in the preceding paragraph. There will be no order as to costs.
A. E. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer