MUHAMMAD ILYAS MALIK vs MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for retrospective upgradation to BPS-17. The petitioner, a Registration Inspector, was removed from service in 1982 but subsequently reinstated in 1989 following a Tribunal order. During his period of removal, the Establishment Division issued a notification in 1986 upgrading the post of Registration Inspector to BPS-17, a benefit granted to other officials. Upon reinstatement, the petitioner sought similar upgradation effective from the date his peers received it. The authorities granted the upgradation but effective only from 1990, prompting the petitioner to challenge this limitation. The core legal question is whether an employee, whose removal from service was set aside, is entitled to the benefits of a post-upgradation notification issued during the period of his wrongful removal. Finding that the issue requires substantial consideration regarding the rights of reinstated employees to retrospective service benefits, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim for seniority and upgradation from the earlier date.
- Is an employee, whose removal from service is set aside, entitled to the benefits of a post-upgradation notification issued during the period of his absence?
- Does the reinstatement of an employee to service retroactively entitle them to the same service benefits granted to colleagues during the period of their removal?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. The Petitioner while working as a Registration Inspector/Registrar, Industrial Registration Office, Vehari, was removed from service by order dated 16-2-1982. This order was set aside by the Tribunal and the Petitioner was reinstated by order dated 3-4-1989, but it was left open to the respondents to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings and to determine as to how the intervening period could be treated. Fresh proceedings were accordingly taken and the Petitioner was found guilty of inefficiency. He was censured by order dated 17-9-1989 and the intervening period from 16-2-1982 to 17-4-1989 was treated as leave of the kind due to him.
3. By Notification dated 22-5-1986 issued by the Establishment Division, Registration Inspectors/Registrars and Statistical Investigators (BPS-16) were upgraded to BPS-17 and 132 officials were allowed benefit of upgradation to BPS-17 by Notification dated 29-5-1986. The petitioner was not considered for upgradation as he was at that time out of service. After his reinstatement the Petitioner made representation before the Director-General, Registration, on 26- 9-1989 for his upgradation to BPS-17. By Notification dated 13-1-1991 the petitioner was upgraded to BPS-17 with effect from 22-11-1990. On 10-2-1991 the petitioner represented before respondent No, 2 for his upgradation from the due date. Thereafter representation was made to the Secretary, Establishment Division on 10-8-1991 through proper channel for his upgradation and fixation of seniority accordingly. The petitioner's representation was not accepted, which was conveyed by letter dated 10-11-1991. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the order of removal from service had been set aside and the petitioner remained in service, he was entitled to benefit of upgradation of post with effect from 29-5-1986. The question requires consideration. Leave is granted.