1984 PLC(CS) 1519

The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 2nd October, 1983 to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.

2. The appellant was arrested and sent to judicial lock up under section 307, P. P. C. He was marked absent and was ultimately dismissed after holding an ex parte enquiry. The learned lower Court has not given any reason for disallowing back benefits.

3. The very order of reinstatement was passed without any sufficient evidence that the appellant had applied for leave. The information sent by the appellant from jail to the effect that he bad been arrested was not caused to be produced in evidence. Exh. P‑1 is not that application but it was addressed by the appellant to the jail authorities after he returned for veri fication that he had sent an application to the respondent. The endorsement A of Exh. P‑2 of the jail authorities does not show if full particulars of the under‑trial prisoner were given sufficient to trace out the detenu. This too is not known if any request for the grant of leave was made in the applica tion or not. Endorsement Exh. P‑2 rather shows that previous application sent from jail was only an information.

4. So this is not a fit case for the grant of back benefits at least.

5. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

M. Y. M.

Appeal dismissed.