ABDUL MAJID vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the portion of the Service Tribunal's order dated 11-1-1988 that denied him back benefits upon his reinstatement in service. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in denying back benefits when the employee's reinstatement was based on a technical flaw in the inquiry proceedings and the employee had contributed to the disciplinary action by remaining absent without sanctioned leave. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal had the lawful authority to deny back benefits under such circumstances, as the employee's own conduct of unauthorized absence provided a good and sufficient reason. The court laid down the principle that an employee reinstated on technical grounds after being absent without leave may lawfully be denied back benefits based on their own contributory conduct.
- Can the Service Tribunal deny back benefits upon reinstating an employee who was absent without sanctioned leave?
- Whether leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution can be granted when the Service Tribunal denies back benefits for valid reasons.
- Is an employee reinstated on technical grounds automatically entitled to back benefits?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner whose appeal was accepted by the Service Tribunal and whose reinstatement in service was ordered, feels aggrieved by that part of the order whereby back benefits have been denied to him. He seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against that part of the order of the Service Tribunal dated 11-1-1988 which is Otherwise to his benefit.
2. While denying the back benefits, the Tribunal has given the following reasons in justification of it:- - "For the reasons recorded above, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellant shall be reinstated in service, with no order of back benefits as the appellant had landed himself on the platform of disciplinary action by his own conduct by remaining absent from duty without getting his leave sanctioned and has succeeded in this appeal on technical ground of flaw in the inquiry proceedings."
The accuracy of the reason given is not challenged. It is a good and sufficient reason for denying the back benefits and the Service Tribunal had under the law the power to pass such an order. No question of law arises and leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- SHAFIQUE AHMED Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2026 PLC(CS) 874
- Chief Executive MEPCO & others vs Muhammad Fazil, etc 2019 SCP 246
- CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEPCO and others vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others 2019 PLJ SC 450, 2019 P.S.C 1295, 2019 SCP 246, 2019 SCMR 919