Pakistan Case Law
2005 PLC (C.S.) 946

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE DETHO vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2005 PLC (C.S.) 946
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.C.P. No.D-252 of 2004
Date2005-03-16
Judge(s)S. Ali Aslam Jafferi and Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition was filed seeking implementation of a judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal which had reinstated the petitioner in service, along with payment of wages from the date of the tribunal's judgment. The core legal question was whether an employee is entitled to be treated as on duty from the date of submitting a joining report following a favourable service tribunal decision, notwithstanding the employer's intention to challenge or pending unstayed proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Sindh High Court held that since the petitioner submitted his duty joining report immediately after the tribunal's judgment and was unjustly prevented from joining on various pretexts without any lawful excuse or stay order from the apex court, he could not be blamed for the delay. The court ruled that the petitioner shall be deemed to be on duty w.e.f. the date of his initial joining report. The key principle laid down is that employers cannot arbitrarily deny reinstatement or delay duty assumption based on contemplated or pending unstayed legal challenges against a service tribunal's judgment.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an employee is entitled to be treated on duty from the date of submitting a joining report after a favourable service tribunal decision when no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court?
  • Can an employer refuse to reinstate an employee on the ground that it intends to approach the Supreme Court against a service tribunal's judgment without obtaining an interim stay?
  • Whether an employee can be denied service benefits for a period during which he was kept away from duty through no fault of his own?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
constitutional petitionservice tribunalreinstatementduty joining reportback benefitsunstayed proceedings

ORDER

1. ' Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to implement the judgment dated 10-11-2003 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in letter and spirit and reinstate the petitioner in service and allow him wages since the date of judgment of Tribunal.

2. ' It is not disputed that service appeal filed by the present petitioner was allowed by Federal Service Tribunal on 10-11-2003 and he was ordered to be reinstated in service, whereafter he submitted his duty joining report on 12-11-2003, which was received in the office of respondent No.3 on the same date, but he was not taken on duty on the ground that respondents intended to approach the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal. It appears that respondent filed C.P.L.A. 3338 of 2003 in the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan but neither the leave nor stay was granted and ultimately the petition was dismissed on 22-2-2005. Despite that the petitioner was not being allowed to join the duty though he had been running from pillar to post. Ultimately he filed this petition.

3. ' Time was sought in this petition on various dates on the ground that petition for leave to appeal has been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and respondents were trying to get the matter stayed. Indulgence was shown by this Court from time to time and ultimately it transpired that leave was refused by the Honourable Apex Court. Again the petitioner was not taken back on duty, as such we passed order dated 2-3-2005 directing the respondents to comply with the orders of the Federal Service Tribunal failing which proceedings under the Contempt of Court could be initiated. It was thereafter that the petitioner has been allowed to join his duty w.e.f.

4. 10-3-2005, Mr. Rizvi learned counsel for the petitioner requested that duty be treated from the date when the petitioner submitted his joining report for the first time on 12-11-2003 instead of 10-3-2005.

5. ' Mr. Abdul Hai Khan Pathan objected to such prayer and said that the petitioner himself did not come forward to join the duty as such he cannot be treated to be on duty w.e.f. 12-11-2003 as the actual date of joining is 10-3-2005. The contention has absolutely no force being against the record and the stand taken by respondents from time to time. Record shows that petitioner submitted his duty report on 12-11-2003 but he was not allowed to join on various pretexts hence he cannot be blamed. It appears that perhaps the Department made it a point of prestige to keep the petitioner away from his duty for no fault on his part.

6. ' We are therefore of the considered view that under the circumstances, the petitioner shall be treated and deemed to be on duty w.e.f. 12-11-2003 when he submitted his duty report from the first time after the decision of the Tribunal, and he was not allowed to join without any lawful excuse.

7. ' With these observations this petition stands disposed of having achieved its purpose.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.