UMER SAID and others vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE) and others
The petitioners challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal Peshawar, which had accepted their appeals against the termination of their services as Class-IV employees in the Education Department but merely directed their adjustment against future vacancies rather than granting unconditional reinstatement and back-benefits. The core legal question was whether employees whose termination was based on an unlawful land-donation policy and declared void are entitled to immediate reinstatement with back-benefits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that appointments or terminations based on land donation policies are void ab initio, reaffirming that the policy of making appointments against land grants is unconstitutional and tantamount to the sale of public office. The Court concluded that once a termination is found to be void ab initio, the affected employees are entitled to reinstatement from the date of removal along with back-benefits, rather than being left at the mercy of future departmental adjustments. The petitions were converted into appeals and accepted accordingly.
- Whether an employee whose termination is declared void ab initio is entitled to unconditional reinstatement and back-benefits?
- Does a service tribunal act lawfully by directing the future adjustment of wrongfully terminated employees instead of granting immediate reinstatement?
- Whether the policy of making public appointments against land grants is constitutional and permissible?
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Umer Said, Yousaf Khan and Ali Akhtar having been appointed as Class-IV employees in the Education Department on 1-9-1995, 15-6-1993 and 17-4- 1993 respectively, their services were terminated on 19-7-1997 on the only ground that they were not the donors of land to the department. Through the impugned judgment dated 18-5-2004, the learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal Peshawar accepted their appeals against such termination but directed the department to adjust the appellants against Class IV vacancies, as and when occur.
2. The department has not challenged the judgment aforesaid but present appellants have come to this Court seeking leave to appeal on the simple ground that once their terminations were declared void ab initio, they were bound to be reinstated with all back-benefits.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General informed that the petitioners have accordingly been adjusted with effect from 18-10-2004. Be that as it may, the fact remains that their readjustment was a fresh appointment for all intents and purposes, having not accounted for the period between 1997 to 2004.
4. This Court in 1993 SCM R 1287 has categorically observed that the policy of making appointments against land grants is tantamount to the sale of public office for property, and further, that it was not only against the Constitution but also not conductive to public interest. We reiterate that such appointments are void ab initio. Amazingly, in the instant cases, the competent authority has, in flagrant disregard of the aforesaid verdict of this Court, had terminated the services of the petitioners because they could not donate lands to procure the job.
5. Once it is held that the termination of an employee is void ab initio, they become entitled to reinstatement with back-benefits and cannot, despite such decree, be left at the mercy of the department for adjustment, which may or may not occur or which may or may not be possible. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal was, therefore, unlawful and amounted to giving no relief to the successful appellants. Consequently, the petitions in hand, after conversion into appeals, are hereby accepted and the petitioners are reinstated with effect from the date of their removal, with back-benefits.
Cited by 7 cases
- SHAFIQUE AHMED Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2026 PLC(CS) 874
- TAHIR KAZMI Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE 2026 PLC(CS) 510
- TAHIR KAZMI Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE 2026 PLD 145
- Abdul Razzaq vs Secretary, Education Department, Quetta and 4 others 2024 PLD Balochistan 92
- Muhammad Sharif vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, etc 2021 PLC (C.S.) 762, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 762, 2021 P SC 673, 2021 SCMR 962,
- AWAS KHAN Versus EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 2015 PLC(CS) 1402
- Tahir Kazmi and others vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others 2025 SCP 237