ADAM KHAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
The petitioner, a dismissed Foot-Constable, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had dismissed his appeal for back-benefits following his reinstatement in service by the Inspector-General of Police. The core legal question was whether a reinstated employee is automatically entitled to back-benefits regardless of delay, lack of diligence in pursuing remedies, and failure to prove that they remained jobless during the intervening period. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was justified in refusing back-benefits under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner failed to pursue his revision diligently and did not provide satisfactory evidence of not having worked elsewhere for gain during the interregnum. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that back-benefits are not granted as a matter of course when the employee contributes to the delay and fails to establish that they remained unemployed during the period of absence from service.
- Is a reinstated employee automatically entitled to back-benefits upon reinstatement in service?
- Can back-benefits be refused if an employee fails to prove that they remained jobless during the interregnum?
- Does undue delay and lack of diligence in pursuing departmental remedies disentitle a civil servant to back-benefits?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 29- 7-2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, in Appeal No,1347 of 2000.
2. The petitioner, a Foot-Constable was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Multan, by order, dated 30-11-1985. His appeal there against was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan. His revision petition was accepted by the Inspector-General of Police, by order, dated 26-4-2000 whereby, the petitioner was reinstated in service but without back-benefits. The intervening period was treated as leave of the kind due.
Therefore, the petitioner moved the Tribunal for back-benefits, by filing Appeal No,1347 of 2000, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 29-7-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner was not at fault, therefore, he was entitled to the grant of back-benefits consequent upon reinstatement in service. Reliance was placed on the cases of Mrs. Munawar Sauni v. Director, Army Education 1991 SCM R 135 and Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Zakat, Social Welfare Department Peshawar and another v.
Sadullah Khan 1996 SCM R 413.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also gone through the available record. We find that despite the directions given by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation for deciding the revision petition of the petitioner within three months, the matter remained pending for a considerable period. The petitioner failed to pursue the matter with diligence and he allowed his revision petition to remain in a state of limbo for a long period. He also failed to furnish any satisfactory evidence that during the interregnum he did not work anywhere for gain and remained jobless. The Tribunal was quite justified in refusing back-benefits to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case. The ratio laid down in the precedent cases referred upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable on facts of the present one. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.