BINYAMIN MASIH vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education, Lahore and 4 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment that reinstated the petitioner but denied back-benefits for the period he remained out of service, directing that the intervening period be treated as leave of the kind due. The petitioner, a school teacher, had his services terminated by the department following a misinterpretation of a Lahore High Court order that had merely directed him to approach the Service Tribunal for grievance redressal. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the department acted without justification and committed a significant administrative blunder by terminating the petitioner's services without cause. The Court held that the petitioner was not at fault and that the department's actions were regrettable. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and modified the Service Tribunal's judgment. The Court ordered that the petitioner be paid his full salary for the entire intervening period of unemployment, thereby affirming the principle that an employee wrongfully terminated due to departmental error is entitled to full back-benefits.
- Is an employee entitled to back-benefits upon reinstatement if the termination was found to be unjustified and based on a misinterpretation of a court order?
- Can a government department terminate an employee's services based on a misconstrued judicial directive?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to modify a Service Tribunal's order regarding the treatment of an intervening period of unemployment?
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 11-2- 2000 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Tribunal") whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been accepted without granting back-benefits with the direction that the period during which the petitioner remained out of service "be treated as leave of the kind due to him".
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case that petitioner was posted at Primary School- Chuchak Markaz Pindi Bhattian and subsequently he was posted at Government Primary School Gaggay Markaz Jalal Pur Bhattian. The petitioner performed his duty for a period of three months at Markaz Gaggay and subsequently he was transferred to Primary School Mubarah. The salary of the petitioner was withheld without any justification and in spite of various applications no order whatsoever was passed by the Deputy Director, Education Officer. The petitioner under such compelling circumstances filed a Writ Petition bearing No,15173/95 in the Lahore High Court which was disposed of on 19-11-1995 with the direction that petitioner should approach the Service Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. The department, without diligent application of mind and without having gone through the judgment of Lahore High Court amazingly terminated the services of petitioner on 29-1-1996 by misconstruing and misinterpreting the said judgment which was assailed before the Service Tribunal by whom the termination order, dated 24-1-1996 has been set aside vide judgment impugned by reinstating the petitioner in service with the direction that intervening period w,e,f, 24-1-1996 to 11-2-2000 be treated as leave of the kind due to him.
3. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahlah, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner whose prime contention is that the services of petitioner could not have been terminated pursuant to judgment dated 19-11-1995 delivered by the Lahore High Court which has been misinterpreted and misconstrued. We have also perused the judgment in question whereby no such direction was given but the petitioner was directed simplicitor to approach the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
4. Mr. Irshadullah Bhatti, Assistant Director (Legal) and Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Bhatti, District Education Officer alongwith Mr. Abid Ali Shah, Assistant Education Officer 'are present and could not furnish any justification on the basis whereof the services of petitioner could be terminated. The petitioner had suffered a lot without any fault on his part due to the blunder committed by the department which is regrettable and speaks a volume about the efficiency and good governance of the department concerned.
5. In such view of the matter we are inclined to convert this petition into appeal which is accepted and judgment impugned is modified to the extent that the salary concerning the period from 24-1- 1996 to 11-2-2000 shall be paid to petitioner within a period of four weeks under intimation to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Lahore.
Cited by 6 cases
- INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB Versus TARIQ MAHMOOD 2015 PLC(CS) 366
- SIDDIQUE AKBAR vs CHAIRMAN STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and 4 others 2013 PLC 1
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION) and another 2010 PLC (C.S.) 613
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs E.D.O. (EDUCATION) and others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 560
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION) 2007 SCMR 855
- INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE vs TARIQ MAHMOOD 2013 PLJ SC 834