MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, TEHSIL
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26-4-1983. The petitioner, a Patwari whose services were terminated during his medical leave, challenged the termination through departmental hierarchy and ultimately succeeded before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which ordered his reinstatement and directed that his absence from duty be treated as leave of the kind due. The core legal question raised in the petition is whether the Service Tribunal, upon reinstating the petitioner into service, failed to exercise jurisdiction by disallowing him consequential benefits such as salary and seniority towards pension. The Supreme Court held that the point raised regarding the denial of consequential benefits requires determination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine whether a reinstated employee is entitled to back benefits and related service adjustments upon reinstatement.
- Whether an employee reinstated into service by a Service Tribunal is automatically entitled to back benefits and salary for the period of absence?
- Does the denial of seniority towards pension upon reinstatement constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction by the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 26-4-1983.
2. The petitioner, who is a Patwari, applied for one day's leave on 28-2-1976 which was granted to him the next day. While on leave he fell seriously ill and submitted an application for one month's leave from 2-3-1976 to 31-3-1976 and the application was supported by a medical certificate.The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated on 6-3-1976. On appeal, the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, set aside the order of termination of the petitioner's services and remanded the case to the Collector Ferozewala, for decision afresh, vide order dated 12-7-1976. The Collector after hearing the case again, vide his order dated 30-6-1979,inflicted major penalty upon the petitioner and dismissed him from service, his appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on 8-9- 1979 and his revision by the Member, Board of Revenue, on 27-3-1982. The petitioner then filed an 2 ppeal before the Service Tribunal which was accepted on 26-4-1983, ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner. The Tribunal further ordered that his absence from duty be treated on leave of the kind due.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently submitted that once the petitioner was re-instated into service, the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in disallowing the petitioner the other benefits, such as salary and seniority towards pension. We think the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires determination. Leave is, therefore,granted. Security for cash in the sum of Rs, 2,000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.