YAQOOB SHAH vs SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F and others
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which reinstated the appellant in service but declined his claim for back-benefits. The core legal question concerns whether a reinstated employee is entitled to back-benefits when similarly situated co-employees were granted the same and where there is no evidence that the employee worked for gain during the period of removal. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was subjected to unjustified discrimination and, applying the principle of consistency, was entitled to back-benefits since there was no fault on his part or evidence of alternative gainful employment. The Court established that reinstated employees cannot be discriminated against regarding back-benefits relative to their peers unless proper legal grounds are established.
- Is a reinstated employee entitled to back-benefits when similarly placed co-employees have been granted the same upon reinstatement?
- Does the absence of evidence showing that an employee worked for gain during the period of removal entitle them to back-benefits?
- Whether the principle of consistency applies to service matters involving the grant of back-benefits?
ORDER
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil appeal with leave of this Court dated 22nd June, 2001 is directed against the judgment, dated 23rd February, 2001 (Yaqoob Shah v. Secretary, Board of Revenue N.- W.F.P. And others) passed by learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby the said appeal was allowed, thereby the appellant was reinstated in service but so far the back-benefits claimed by him, the same were declined hence, the present appeal.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. Of petition as well as in the impugned judgment.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the other employees who were removed from service or their appeal before the Service Tribunal they were reinstated along with back-benefits but the appellant has been discriminated in that respect, therefore, he is entitled to back-benefits, considering that there was no fault On his part whereby he could have been removed from service. He has placed reliance upon Qadeer Ahmad v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another PLD 1990 SC 787. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that because the appellant could not bring anything on record that he did not work for gain during the period of removal from service, therefore, he is not entitled to the back-benefits. He has placed reliance upon Pakistan Automobile Corporation Ltd. Through Chairman v. Mansoor-ul- Haque and others 2004 SCM R 1308. .
4. We do find merit and substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and do not find any merit and force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant that other employees who were removed from service on their reinstatement they were granted back-'benefits. In the circumstances on the principles of consistency the appellant would also be entitled to same treatment with regard to back-benefits and thereby he cannot be discriminated. Besides there is nothing on the record that the appellant worked for gain during the period of his removal. On the contrary the appellant has prayed for his back-benefits even, in his appeal before the Service Tribunal. We find that the Service Tribunal has erred in not granting the back-benefits to the appellant considering that there was nothing on the conduct of the appellant which warranted his removal from service.
5. In the circumstances the impugned order is modified to the extant that the appellant is entitled to back-benefits, consequently, the appeal is allowed.