UMER SAID etc. vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), SECONDARY SWAT
This matter concerns the termination of Class-IV employees in the Education Department, whose services were terminated solely because they had not donated land to the department. The NWFP Service Tribunal had previously accepted their appeals against termination but directed the department to adjust them against future vacancies rather than reinstating them. The petitioners challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that since their initial terminations were void ab initio, they were entitled to immediate reinstatement with full back benefits. The Supreme Court held that the policy of making appointments contingent upon land donations is illegal, unconstitutional, and tantamount to the sale of public office. The Court reaffirmed that such appointments are void ab initio. Consequently, the Court ruled that when a termination is declared void ab initio, the employee is entitled to immediate reinstatement with back benefits, rather than being subjected to the uncertainty of future adjustment. The petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, with the Court ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners effective from the date of their original removal, including all back benefits.
- Is a policy of making government appointments contingent upon land donations legally permissible?
- When a termination of service is declared void ab initio, is the employee entitled to immediate reinstatement with back benefits?
- Can a service tribunal direct the adjustment of an employee against future vacancies instead of ordering reinstatement when the original termination was unlawful?
Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J.--Umer Said, Yousaf Khan and Ali Akbar 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 NWFP 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 categorially 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 conducive 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.