Find a Lawyer

Case No. 547/506 of 1983, decided on 3rd July, 1984.

‑‑ S. 4 (1) (a)‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Not maintainable without exhausting departmental remedies‑Appellant appointed as Civil Judge subject to passing departmental examination‑Services, terminated due to failure of passing departmental examination-During pendency of appeal before Tribunal against termination order appellant reinstated having found to have passed requisite examination‑Appellant seeking remedy of back benefits in respect of intervening period‑Objection that it was incumbent upon appellant to first make application to departmental authority in respect of claim of back benefits‑Objection accepted Appellant directed to file representation to departmental authority regarding claim of back benefits and could approach Tribunal only if such claim not settled.

Kh. Haris Ahmad for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Zaheer‑ud‑Din has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which be has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned notification, dated 6th October, 1983 be declared as void, illegal and without lawful authority and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Civil Judge with the condition that he shall have to pass the departmental exami nation otherwise his services will stand terminated. However, the impugned notification was issued by which his services alongwith other Civil Judges were terminated on the ground that they had failed to fulfil the pre requisite condition of passing the departmental examination which was must.

4. These cases were heard by us and a judgment was delivered vide dated 3rd June, 1984 in Case No. 545/494 of 1983 by which we upheld the notification as legal and found that as the appellants had not passed their departmental examination which was a condition prerequisite for their regularization their appeal was dismissed.

5. The case of the appellant was taken independently on the request of the appellant's counsel that his case was distinguishable from the other respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at, length and District Attorney with the assistance of the representative of the Department and find that appellant has been reinstated in service as he has passed the departmental examination. In this manner we are of the consi dered opinion that the appeal had borne fruit and was liable to be disposed of accordingly. However, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the point that the appellant is entitled to back benefit on his re‑instatement because he was not one of those who had not fulfilled the prerequisite requirement of passing the departmental examination.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has raised the objection that once the earlier notification has been upheld by this Tribunal it would be incumbent upon the appellant to make the application to the Departmental authority and get the issue settled at that end, regarding hi claim of benefits. According to the District Attorney this appeal would no be maintainable under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Ac 1974 which lays down that before coming to this Tribunal department remedies should be exhausted first.

6. In view of above we dispose of this appeal as having borne fruit with the observation that the appellant should file a representation before the departmental authority with regard to the claim of back benefits and if the same is not settled then he can approach to this Tribunal.

Howsoever, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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